Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785221093313
B. Eidhof, D. D. de Ruyter
Primary and secondary schools across the world are expected to contribute to the citizenship development of their pupils. Most citizenship curricula focus on the acquisition of knowledge and the cultivation of skills and attitudes. Citizenship-related self-efficacy beliefs are often neglected in the literature on citizenship education, although they appear to play a crucial role in learning processes, among others as explanatory factors for the inequalities between students in different educational tracks. As such, studies on the development of citizenship-related self-efficacy beliefs have the potential to inform practice in a way that fosters greater equality of opportunity. However, as the literature on civic and political self-efficacy uses different dimensions and conceptualizations, this poses challenges to both the scientific accumulation of knowledge and translation to teaching practices. Here, we analyse the conceptual challenges and propose a framework for the study of self-efficacy in citizenship education research that incorporates social and political tasks of citizens and distinguishes the variety of communities in which citizens perform those tasks on two axes, namely formality and size. In doing so, we argue for fine-grained distinctions based on context instead of the all-encompassing notions of civic and political self-efficacy political theorists appear to prefer. We end by discussion two normative issues.
{"title":"Citizenship, self-efficacy and education: A conceptual review","authors":"B. Eidhof, D. D. de Ruyter","doi":"10.1177/14778785221093313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221093313","url":null,"abstract":"Primary and secondary schools across the world are expected to contribute to the citizenship development of their pupils. Most citizenship curricula focus on the acquisition of knowledge and the cultivation of skills and attitudes. Citizenship-related self-efficacy beliefs are often neglected in the literature on citizenship education, although they appear to play a crucial role in learning processes, among others as explanatory factors for the inequalities between students in different educational tracks. As such, studies on the development of citizenship-related self-efficacy beliefs have the potential to inform practice in a way that fosters greater equality of opportunity. However, as the literature on civic and political self-efficacy uses different dimensions and conceptualizations, this poses challenges to both the scientific accumulation of knowledge and translation to teaching practices. Here, we analyse the conceptual challenges and propose a framework for the study of self-efficacy in citizenship education research that incorporates social and political tasks of citizens and distinguishes the variety of communities in which citizens perform those tasks on two axes, namely formality and size. In doing so, we argue for fine-grained distinctions based on context instead of the all-encompassing notions of civic and political self-efficacy political theorists appear to prefer. We end by discussion two normative issues.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49503030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211060127
R. Curren
This article offers retrospective and prospective commentary on the significance of A Theory of Justice for philosophy of education. It addresses the progress that Anglophone philosophy of education has made since the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, and the ways this progress has been facilitated by the transformation of political philosophy that Rawls set in motion. It offers examples of ongoing lines of inquiry and unfinished projects in philosophy of education for which Rawls’ methods and positions remain important.
{"title":"The significance of A Theory of Justice for philosophy of education","authors":"R. Curren","doi":"10.1177/14778785211060127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211060127","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers retrospective and prospective commentary on the significance of A Theory of Justice for philosophy of education. It addresses the progress that Anglophone philosophy of education has made since the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, and the ways this progress has been facilitated by the transformation of political philosophy that Rawls set in motion. It offers examples of ongoing lines of inquiry and unfinished projects in philosophy of education for which Rawls’ methods and positions remain important.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49137896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211060128
John White
Personal well-being is a central concept in philosophical discussions of education and its aims. Although the work of general philosophers like Nussbaum, Griffin, Raz and Sen on the topic has been influential here, there has been next-to-no interest among philosophers of education in John Rawls’s work on ‘the good’ – in great contrast to interest in his work on ‘the right’, and despite the key place that his theory of the good has in his Theory of Justice (TJ), Chapter 7. This paper explores a likely reason for this lack of interest. This is connected with Rawls’s 1942 undergraduate thesis on the meaning of sin and faith. While there are many continuities between this – eg. to do with communitarianism and equality – and the theory of the right in TJ, there are none in the area of the good, since the thesis rejected the notion for theological reasons. In writing TJ, therefore, having long abandoned his Christian belief, Rawls had a rich background of earlier work on the right which he was able to work up into a powerful argument, while in the area of the good he had to start from scratch. The result, drawing on Josiah Royce’s ideas about plans of life, is disappointing and open to fairly obvious objections. In the light of this, it is not surprising that Rawls’s views on the good have had so little influence in philosophy of education.
{"title":"The take-up of Rawls’ theory of the good in philosophy of education","authors":"John White","doi":"10.1177/14778785211060128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211060128","url":null,"abstract":"Personal well-being is a central concept in philosophical discussions of education and its aims. Although the work of general philosophers like Nussbaum, Griffin, Raz and Sen on the topic has been influential here, there has been next-to-no interest among philosophers of education in John Rawls’s work on ‘the good’ – in great contrast to interest in his work on ‘the right’, and despite the key place that his theory of the good has in his Theory of Justice (TJ), Chapter 7. This paper explores a likely reason for this lack of interest. This is connected with Rawls’s 1942 undergraduate thesis on the meaning of sin and faith. While there are many continuities between this – eg. to do with communitarianism and equality – and the theory of the right in TJ, there are none in the area of the good, since the thesis rejected the notion for theological reasons. In writing TJ, therefore, having long abandoned his Christian belief, Rawls had a rich background of earlier work on the right which he was able to work up into a powerful argument, while in the area of the good he had to start from scratch. The result, drawing on Josiah Royce’s ideas about plans of life, is disappointing and open to fairly obvious objections. In the light of this, it is not surprising that Rawls’s views on the good have had so little influence in philosophy of education.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42247055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211061310
G. Orona
Virtue education is gaining popularity in institutions of higher education. Given this growing interest, several theoretical accounts explaining the process of virtue learning have emerged. However, there is scant empirical evidence supporting their applicability for intellectual virtue. In this study, we apply a theory of virtue learning to the development of intellectual curiosity among undergraduates. We find that learning why virtue is relevant and important to one’s education is consistently and moderately correlated with increases in intellectual curiosity across time points and analytic approaches. A weaker yet still positive association is found with increases in knowledge of intellectual curiosity. The implications of these results connect with pedagogical recommendations stressed across intellectual and moral virtue education.
{"title":"Gotta know why! Preliminary evidence supporting a theory of virtue learning as applied to intellectual curiosity","authors":"G. Orona","doi":"10.1177/14778785211061310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211061310","url":null,"abstract":"Virtue education is gaining popularity in institutions of higher education. Given this growing interest, several theoretical accounts explaining the process of virtue learning have emerged. However, there is scant empirical evidence supporting their applicability for intellectual virtue. In this study, we apply a theory of virtue learning to the development of intellectual curiosity among undergraduates. We find that learning why virtue is relevant and important to one’s education is consistently and moderately correlated with increases in intellectual curiosity across time points and analytic approaches. A weaker yet still positive association is found with increases in knowledge of intellectual curiosity. The implications of these results connect with pedagogical recommendations stressed across intellectual and moral virtue education.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46691358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211060211
Harvey D. Shapiro
Tyson Lewis has a remarkable ability to interpret complex philosophical works by developing their explicit and implicit educational concepts. Walter Benjamin’s Antifascist Education is no exception. In this fine book, Lewis seeks to provide an ‘educational response to the manipulativeness, coldness, and hardness’ of growing authoritarianism in education (p. 16). He is ambitious, considering the book to be part of a broader effort to liberate teaching from its oppressed state in neoliberal or, as he suggests, ‘neofascist’ society. The book offers novel approaches to two crucial educational questions: (1) What forms of education cultivate the free expression of potentialities? and (2) How might Benjamin help us challenge common, problematic binaries, for example, knowledge– truth, immanence–transcendence, and means–ends, in educational theory and practice? Often Lewis’s writing is evocative, inspiring, even poetic: ‘The wave of education swells through learning into the crash of teaching, which sends the wave outward in a million directions’ (p. 37). At times, his writing also can be seemingly abstruse, such as when he suggests that ‘Benjamin’s educational forms induce awakenings that are indeterminate swellings within what is while extending what is to its extreme point where it touches its own potentiality for transformation (its capacity to become different by touching difference)’ (p. 208). While the book addresses each of this statement’s concepts, readers less familiar with the philosophical discourse which it invokes may be challenged to parse and explicate the relationships among ‘awakening’, ‘indeterminacy’, ‘swelling’, ‘touching potentiality’, ‘transformation’, and ‘difference’. Lewis does not hesitate to use the extreme terms, ‘fascist’ and ‘neofascist’, in characterizing prevalent neoliberal practices and policies and growing right-wing sociocultural and political dispositions. Writing his book in the midst of the right-wing fanaticism being exposed and incited during the Trump presidency, Lewis alerts us to growing parallels between mid-twentieth-century European fascist ideologies and current authoritarian approaches to educational policy and practice. At times, however, Lewis appears to treat the term ‘fascism’ as similar to, or closely analogous to, other movements and socioeconomic forms such as right-wing fanaticism, liberalism, neoliberalism, and 1060211 TRE0010.1177/14778785211060211Theory and Research in EducationBook reviews book-review2021
{"title":"Book review: Tyson Lewis, Walter Benjamin’s Antifascist Education: From Riddles to Radio","authors":"Harvey D. Shapiro","doi":"10.1177/14778785211060211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211060211","url":null,"abstract":"Tyson Lewis has a remarkable ability to interpret complex philosophical works by developing their explicit and implicit educational concepts. Walter Benjamin’s Antifascist Education is no exception. In this fine book, Lewis seeks to provide an ‘educational response to the manipulativeness, coldness, and hardness’ of growing authoritarianism in education (p. 16). He is ambitious, considering the book to be part of a broader effort to liberate teaching from its oppressed state in neoliberal or, as he suggests, ‘neofascist’ society. The book offers novel approaches to two crucial educational questions: (1) What forms of education cultivate the free expression of potentialities? and (2) How might Benjamin help us challenge common, problematic binaries, for example, knowledge– truth, immanence–transcendence, and means–ends, in educational theory and practice? Often Lewis’s writing is evocative, inspiring, even poetic: ‘The wave of education swells through learning into the crash of teaching, which sends the wave outward in a million directions’ (p. 37). At times, his writing also can be seemingly abstruse, such as when he suggests that ‘Benjamin’s educational forms induce awakenings that are indeterminate swellings within what is while extending what is to its extreme point where it touches its own potentiality for transformation (its capacity to become different by touching difference)’ (p. 208). While the book addresses each of this statement’s concepts, readers less familiar with the philosophical discourse which it invokes may be challenged to parse and explicate the relationships among ‘awakening’, ‘indeterminacy’, ‘swelling’, ‘touching potentiality’, ‘transformation’, and ‘difference’. Lewis does not hesitate to use the extreme terms, ‘fascist’ and ‘neofascist’, in characterizing prevalent neoliberal practices and policies and growing right-wing sociocultural and political dispositions. Writing his book in the midst of the right-wing fanaticism being exposed and incited during the Trump presidency, Lewis alerts us to growing parallels between mid-twentieth-century European fascist ideologies and current authoritarian approaches to educational policy and practice. At times, however, Lewis appears to treat the term ‘fascism’ as similar to, or closely analogous to, other movements and socioeconomic forms such as right-wing fanaticism, liberalism, neoliberalism, and 1060211 TRE0010.1177/14778785211060211Theory and Research in EducationBook reviews book-review2021","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47471490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211060208
C. Parker
{"title":"Book reviews: Maria Hantzopoulos and Monisha Bajaj, Educating for Peace and Human Rights: An Introduction","authors":"C. Parker","doi":"10.1177/14778785211060208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211060208","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48541772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211060206
Christopher Martin
In fact, Lewis’s book is built around examples (paradigms), in this latter sense, to yield new forms of knowledge and applications to teaching. Thus, the ‘riddle’ is a paradigm for what Lewis calls ‘noncommunicative communication’; the ‘collection’ for ‘antifascist educational form[s]’; the ‘radio broadcast’ as a paradigm for ‘instructional practice[s] that . . . . produce historical awakenings’ (p. 64); ‘children’s theater’ as a paradigm for ‘the mimetic faculty’s unique ability to touch the most remote things through two complementary forms of swelling: innervation and extension’ (p. 99). Understanding Lewis’s (and Benjamin’s) use of paradigms, in Agamben’s sense of the term, can be helpful in interpreting the book’s many examples. Lewis makes explicit reference to ‘money’, ‘as the paradigm of all commodities’ (p. 183). Yet, instead of using the concept of paradigm to make a larger set of analogous concepts intelligible, he, perhaps unwittingly, demonstrates how money is an exception. Agamben, building on Benjamin, uses the concept of the ‘exception’ to connote that which is included by being excluded. Lewis says as much: ‘[Money] is a commodity that is included only insofar as it is excluded from the rank and file of all other commodities’ (p. 183). However, rather than serving as an example to make the broader set of commodities intelligible, Lewis instead shows how money is radically different in its being excluded from being just another commodity. Lewis, then, following Marx and Benjamin, is using money as an exception, rather than as an example. It is clear that Lewis has succeeded in providing thoughtful and compelling answers to his central questions on a liberating educational philosophy. Drawing on his own extensive scholarship in educational philosophy and his meticulous reading of Benjamin, Lewis provides provocative lessons on what it can mean to foster free expression of students’ potentialities and to unravel binaries (such as means and ends), that have stunted the progressive development of educational forms in the context of growing educational authoritarianism.
{"title":"Book review: Campbell F. Scribner and Bryan R. Warnick, Spare the Rod: Punishment and the Moral Community of Schools","authors":"Christopher Martin","doi":"10.1177/14778785211060206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211060206","url":null,"abstract":"In fact, Lewis’s book is built around examples (paradigms), in this latter sense, to yield new forms of knowledge and applications to teaching. Thus, the ‘riddle’ is a paradigm for what Lewis calls ‘noncommunicative communication’; the ‘collection’ for ‘antifascist educational form[s]’; the ‘radio broadcast’ as a paradigm for ‘instructional practice[s] that . . . . produce historical awakenings’ (p. 64); ‘children’s theater’ as a paradigm for ‘the mimetic faculty’s unique ability to touch the most remote things through two complementary forms of swelling: innervation and extension’ (p. 99). Understanding Lewis’s (and Benjamin’s) use of paradigms, in Agamben’s sense of the term, can be helpful in interpreting the book’s many examples. Lewis makes explicit reference to ‘money’, ‘as the paradigm of all commodities’ (p. 183). Yet, instead of using the concept of paradigm to make a larger set of analogous concepts intelligible, he, perhaps unwittingly, demonstrates how money is an exception. Agamben, building on Benjamin, uses the concept of the ‘exception’ to connote that which is included by being excluded. Lewis says as much: ‘[Money] is a commodity that is included only insofar as it is excluded from the rank and file of all other commodities’ (p. 183). However, rather than serving as an example to make the broader set of commodities intelligible, Lewis instead shows how money is radically different in its being excluded from being just another commodity. Lewis, then, following Marx and Benjamin, is using money as an exception, rather than as an example. It is clear that Lewis has succeeded in providing thoughtful and compelling answers to his central questions on a liberating educational philosophy. Drawing on his own extensive scholarship in educational philosophy and his meticulous reading of Benjamin, Lewis provides provocative lessons on what it can mean to foster free expression of students’ potentialities and to unravel binaries (such as means and ends), that have stunted the progressive development of educational forms in the context of growing educational authoritarianism.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45067213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211056151
M. V. Costa
This article examines the many traces of John Rawls’ theory of justice in contemporary philosophy of education. Beyond work that directly explores the educational implications of justice as fairness and political liberalism, there are many interesting debates in philosophy of education that make use of Rawlsian concepts to defend views that go well beyond those advocated in justice as fairness. There have also been methodological debates on Rawls’ distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory which concern the proper balance between empirically informed discussion and fruitful normative reflection.
{"title":"Rawls’ traces in contemporary philosophy of education","authors":"M. V. Costa","doi":"10.1177/14778785211056151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211056151","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the many traces of John Rawls’ theory of justice in contemporary philosophy of education. Beyond work that directly explores the educational implications of justice as fairness and political liberalism, there are many interesting debates in philosophy of education that make use of Rawlsian concepts to defend views that go well beyond those advocated in justice as fairness. There have also been methodological debates on Rawls’ distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory which concern the proper balance between empirically informed discussion and fruitful normative reflection.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49147774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211059861
Zdenko Kodelja
The concept of justice that Rawls discussed in his famous book “A Theory of Justice” has had a profound influence on contemporary political and moral philosophy, as well as, to some extent, philosophy of education. Many philosophers of education have applied or criticized Rawls’s concepts – above all the concepts of autonomy, the person, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle – which he developed as an essential part of his theory of justice. In this paper I will discuss very briefly only one of the problems that philosophers of education face when applying his concepts of the autonomous person and the difference principle. The essence of this problem is expressed in the question of whether or not to respect the limits of the applicability of these concepts set by Rawls himself.
{"title":"Two limits to the application of Rawls’s concepts of autonomy and the difference principle in contemporary philosophy of education","authors":"Zdenko Kodelja","doi":"10.1177/14778785211059861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211059861","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of justice that Rawls discussed in his famous book “A Theory of Justice” has had a profound influence on contemporary political and moral philosophy, as well as, to some extent, philosophy of education. Many philosophers of education have applied or criticized Rawls’s concepts – above all the concepts of autonomy, the person, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle – which he developed as an essential part of his theory of justice. In this paper I will discuss very briefly only one of the problems that philosophers of education face when applying his concepts of the autonomous person and the difference principle. The essence of this problem is expressed in the question of whether or not to respect the limits of the applicability of these concepts set by Rawls himself.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46126148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/14778785211057485
Robyn Ilten-Gee, Sarah Manchanda
The question of ‘developmental appropriateness’ in education can be both empowering and inhibiting. When are students ‘ready’ to talk about social injustices and systemic inequalities? How might educators introduce social inequities using developmental findings about reasoning? This article presents social domain theory as a lens through which educators can approach critical consciousness education with young children. An overview of Freire’s critical consciousness construct is presented, including educational interventions, methods, and approaches that support critical consciousness. An overview of social domain theory is also presented. Social domain theory is a developmental theory of sociomoral reasoning that describes three domains of social knowledge that develop independently, and get applied/coordinated/prioritized differently in context by individuals. This theory, and the research stemming from it, has shown that there are developmental transition points during which children come to view their previous logic as inadequate, and are likely to shift their understandings of moral, conventional, and personal issues. A parallel is drawn between these transition points and the process of wrestling with and overturning ‘contradictions’ in critical consciousness education. Contradictions are theorized as dehumanizing power dynamics that show up in students’ everyday circumstances. This article provides tables outlining example contradictions for young children, key domain–related reasoning shifts for young children, and examples for how to create lesson plans that take these two factors into account. Finally, we propose a method of facilitating self-assessment of critical consciousness with young children. Self-reflection questions are provided for teachers and students.
{"title":"Using social domain theory to seek critical consciousness with young children","authors":"Robyn Ilten-Gee, Sarah Manchanda","doi":"10.1177/14778785211057485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211057485","url":null,"abstract":"The question of ‘developmental appropriateness’ in education can be both empowering and inhibiting. When are students ‘ready’ to talk about social injustices and systemic inequalities? How might educators introduce social inequities using developmental findings about reasoning? This article presents social domain theory as a lens through which educators can approach critical consciousness education with young children. An overview of Freire’s critical consciousness construct is presented, including educational interventions, methods, and approaches that support critical consciousness. An overview of social domain theory is also presented. Social domain theory is a developmental theory of sociomoral reasoning that describes three domains of social knowledge that develop independently, and get applied/coordinated/prioritized differently in context by individuals. This theory, and the research stemming from it, has shown that there are developmental transition points during which children come to view their previous logic as inadequate, and are likely to shift their understandings of moral, conventional, and personal issues. A parallel is drawn between these transition points and the process of wrestling with and overturning ‘contradictions’ in critical consciousness education. Contradictions are theorized as dehumanizing power dynamics that show up in students’ everyday circumstances. This article provides tables outlining example contradictions for young children, key domain–related reasoning shifts for young children, and examples for how to create lesson plans that take these two factors into account. Finally, we propose a method of facilitating self-assessment of critical consciousness with young children. Self-reflection questions are provided for teachers and students.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43757084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：