Educators, epistemic reflexivity and post-truth conditions

IF 2.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Educational Change Pub Date : 2023-12-19 DOI:10.1007/s10833-023-09499-1
Christopher T. McCaw, Mary Ryan, Jo Lunn Brownlee
{"title":"Educators, epistemic reflexivity and post-truth conditions","authors":"Christopher T. McCaw, Mary Ryan, Jo Lunn Brownlee","doi":"10.1007/s10833-023-09499-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Under ‘post-truth’ conditions the generation, circulation and status of knowledge are being transformed, with significant implications for institutional trust, social cohesion and public safety. These conditions raise complex challenges and opportunities within education, which plays a potentially pivotal role in supporting communities to respond in an assertive and critical manner. However, little is currently understood about the way key stakeholders within education position themselves epistemically in relation to post-truth conditions. The purpose of this research was to analyse epistemic aspects of educators’ responses to post-truth conditions using a ‘social lab’ methodology, which is a qualitative, action-oriented approach to studying complex social problems. Analysis of data from the social lab, which involved a variety of education stakeholders, identified four epistemic aims (with associated ideals, processes and actions) to orient an educational response to post-truth conditions. However, overall, epistemic aims lacked precision and contextual specificity. Furthermore, aims were associated with divergent underpinning epistemological commitments, mirroring divergences in literature on the educational implications of post-truth conditions. Teachers may require additional training to enhance epistemic reflexivity and drive more productive and inclusive conversations about post-truth in classrooms, staffrooms and ITE programs. The findings are suggestive of the complex epistemological and institutional dynamics that need to be negotiated in educational responses to post-truth conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47376,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Change","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09499-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under ‘post-truth’ conditions the generation, circulation and status of knowledge are being transformed, with significant implications for institutional trust, social cohesion and public safety. These conditions raise complex challenges and opportunities within education, which plays a potentially pivotal role in supporting communities to respond in an assertive and critical manner. However, little is currently understood about the way key stakeholders within education position themselves epistemically in relation to post-truth conditions. The purpose of this research was to analyse epistemic aspects of educators’ responses to post-truth conditions using a ‘social lab’ methodology, which is a qualitative, action-oriented approach to studying complex social problems. Analysis of data from the social lab, which involved a variety of education stakeholders, identified four epistemic aims (with associated ideals, processes and actions) to orient an educational response to post-truth conditions. However, overall, epistemic aims lacked precision and contextual specificity. Furthermore, aims were associated with divergent underpinning epistemological commitments, mirroring divergences in literature on the educational implications of post-truth conditions. Teachers may require additional training to enhance epistemic reflexivity and drive more productive and inclusive conversations about post-truth in classrooms, staffrooms and ITE programs. The findings are suggestive of the complex epistemological and institutional dynamics that need to be negotiated in educational responses to post-truth conditions.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
教育工作者、认识论反思性和后真相条件
在 "后真相 "条件下,知识的产生、流通和地位正在发生变化,对机构信任、社会凝聚力和公共安全产生了重大影响。这些情况给教育带来了复杂的挑战和机遇,而教育在支持社区以自信和批判的方式做出回应方面发挥着潜在的关键作用。然而,目前人们对教育领域的主要利益相关者如何在后真相时代对自身进行认识论定位知之甚少。本研究的目的是采用 "社会实验室 "方法,分析教育工作者在认识论方面对后真相状况的反应。"社会实验室 "是一种定性的、以行动为导向的研究复杂社会问题的方法。对社会实验室的数据进行了分析,确定了四个认识论目标(以及相关的理想、过程和行动),以指导教育应对后真相状况。然而,总体而言,认识论目标缺乏精确性和具体背景。此外,这些目标与不同的基本认识论承诺相关联,反映了有关后真相条件对教育影响的文献中存在的分歧。教师可能需要接受更多培训,以提高认识论的反思能力,并在课堂、教研室和信息技术教育项目中推动更有成效、更具包容性的 "后真相 "对话。研究结果表明,在教育应对后真相条件时,需要对复杂的认识论和制度动态进行协商。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Educational Change
Journal of Educational Change EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Educational Change is an international, professionally refereed, state-of-the-art scholarly journal, reflecting the most important ideas and evidence of educational change. The journal brings together some of the most influential thinkers and writers as well as emerging scholars on educational change. It deals with issues like educational innovation, reform and restructuring, school improvement and effectiveness, culture-building, inspection, school-review, and change management. It examines why some people resist change and what their resistance means. It looks at how men and women, older teachers and younger teachers, students, parents and others experience change differently. It looks at the positive aspects of change but does not hesitate to raise uncomfortable questions about many aspects of educational change either. It looks critically and controversially at the social, economic, cultural and political forces that are driving educational change. The Journal of Educational Change welcomes and supports contributions from a range of disciplines, including history, psychology, political science, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and administrative and organizational theory, and from a broad spectrum of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative approaches, documentary study, action research and conceptual development. School leaders, system administrators, teacher leaders, consultants, facilitators, educational researchers, staff developers and change agents of all kinds will find this journal an indispensable resource for guiding them to both classic and cutting-edge understandings of educational change. No other journal provides such comprehensive coverage of the field of educational change.
期刊最新文献
A mixed methods study of education researchers’ knowledge mobilization approaches “Embracing the essence of student voice…then doing something with the data”: One district’s critical use of evidence External facilitators’ practical work for school improvement: de-professionalising or developing improvement capacity? How teachers’ student voice practices affect student engagement and achievement: exploring choice, receptivity, and responsiveness to student voice as moderators Challenges in sustaining professional learning communities focused on equity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1