Theory and Research in Education最新文献

{"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":"19 1","pages":"322 - 325"},"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}

{"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":"19 1","pages":"296 - 300"},"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}

{"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":"19 1","pages":"308 - 311"},"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}

{"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":"19 1","pages":"235 - 260"},"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}

{"title":"An ameliorative analysis of the concept of education","authors":"Jack Marley‐Payne","doi":"10.1177/14778785211062580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211062580","url":null,"abstract":"Ameliorative analysis is a powerful new approach to understanding concepts, stemming from cutting-edge work at the intersection of philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and metaphysics. It offers the potential to improve our understanding of a range of subject matters. One topic to which it has not yet been applied is the concept of education. Doing so can enhance our understanding of this vital subject matter and, in particular, help in the push for educational justice. While philosophers and policymakers alike have preferred a broad understanding of education that encompasses many aspects of human development, ameliorative considerations favour a narrower concept, tightly connected to formal schooling. This is because effective pursuit of an egalitarian agenda requires education working alongside a range of other welfare priorities, and it is important that our concept of education does not muddy the waters or undermine other aspects of the pursuit of justice.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"19 1","pages":"261 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44338494","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}

{"title":"Discussion and inquiry: A Deweyan perspective on teaching controversial issues","authors":"Veli-Mikko Kauppi, Johannes Drerup","doi":"10.1177/14778785211052199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211052199","url":null,"abstract":"There is a steady line of academic discourse around the topic of controversial issues and how to approach them in and through education. In this line of discourse, discussion is widely seen as a primary method of democratic education that is especially suitable to foster its major educational aims, such as tolerance, reciprocal respect, or political autonomy. The aim of this contribution is to show that the widespread emphasis on the educational and political value of discussions as a way to handle controversial issues in education can be problematic and one-sided. It is argued that the focus on discussions sometimes tends to be interpreted as a ‘magic bullet’ to all different sorts of controversies, without sufficient inquiry into the details that make up the controversy. This uniform solution threatens to downplay and underestimates other relevant components which are essential for the intelligent handling of controversial issues, such as practices of inquiry. Instead of questioning the political value and central educational role of discussing controversial issues tout court, the contribution points out some of the blind spots of the current debate and thereby aims to broaden the spectrum of theoretical and practical perspectives on how to approach controversial issues in education.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"19 1","pages":"213 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45999086","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}

{"title":"Questions in secondary classrooms: Toward a theory of questioning","authors":"K. Alexander, C. H. Gonzalez, Paul Vermette, Sabrina Di Marco","doi":"10.1177/14778785211043020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211043020","url":null,"abstract":"At the heart of the teaching practice is the art of questioning. Costa and Kallick noted that questions are the means by which insights unlock thinking. Effective questioning is essential to effective teaching. Despite this, a cohesive theory on the method of questioning has yet to be developed. A discussion of questioning is vital to moving the teaching profession forward. In this article, we propose a model of effective questioning that we see as the first step toward identifying a unifying theory of questioning. Our model contains the following three components: (1) a well-structured item (a good question), (2) clear expectations for the response (which we call ‘the five considerations’), and (3) a constructivist conversation. This work succeeds in bridging the gap between practice and theory that may otherwise limit good teachers from utilizing their questions in the most effective manner. Because of this, our model should be of use to teachers, teacher educators, professional developers, educational researchers, and theoreticians. We hope that a continued discussion of questioning ensues in all of these circles, so that our field can move closer toward the development of a theory of questioning.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"20 1","pages":"5 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48536382","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}

{"title":"Corrigendum to “Book Review: Mark E. Jonas and Yoshiaki Nakazawa, A Platonic Theory of Moral Education: Cultivating Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Classrooms” by Avi I. Mintz. Published in Theory and Research in Education, volume 19, issue 2, pp. 206–208. DOI: 10.1177/14778785211029756","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/14778785211040347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211040347","url":null,"abstract":"The surname of the first author Mark E. Jonas of the book reviewed here should be spelt “Jonas” and not “Jones” as was used mistakenly within the review.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138528842","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}

{"title":"Book review: Mark E. Jonas and Yoshiaki Nakazawa, A Platonic Theory of Moral Education: Cultivating Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Classrooms","authors":"Avi I. Mintz","doi":"10.1177/14778785211029756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211029756","url":null,"abstract":"demonstrations as pedagogical tools to raise consciousness, and make education central to promoting policies that both undermine capitalism and give meaning to what socialist society looks like’ (p. 117). As such, he adds, ‘education both in its emancipatory symbolic and institutional forms has a central role to play in fighting the resurgence of fascist cultures, mythic historical narratives, and the emerging ideologies of white supremacy and white nationalism’ (p. 127). As formal education systems and wider society continue to shift in response to the pandemic, perhaps there is a silver lining. Perhaps these COVID-19 times become not only a lens but also an opportunity for implementing change, shaping a collective future that fosters deeper critical thinking in societal systems and spaces. Giroux implores us to overhaul our systems, placing critical education at the center. I think he might be onto something.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"19 1","pages":"206 - 208"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14778785211029756","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41522014","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}

{"title":"Book review: Robert F. Ladenson, Moral Issues in Special Education: An Inquiry into the Basic Rights, Responsibilities and Ideals","authors":"Colin M. Macleod","doi":"10.1177/14778785211029758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211029758","url":null,"abstract":"interlocutors’ characters – their concerns, their experiences and their acts before or after the dramatic date of the dialogues in which they appear – colours every Socratic conversation. Jones and Nakazawa are primarily interested in addressing the scholarship that ignored Plato’s characterization and drama and focused instead on dividing his corpus into periods of his alleged intellectual development. Although they note that identifying dialogues as ‘early’, ‘middle’ and ‘late’ has increasingly lost defenders, that developmental framework grounds their analysis; they discuss separately, for example, intellectualism in the early dialogues and intellectualism in the middle dialogues. In my view, Jones and Nakazawa would have offered an even richer view of the psychological nuance in Plato’s theory of moral education had they drawn more heavily on scholars who have looked at the interplay between drama and philosophy in the dialogues. Nevertheless, this is perhaps an unfair critique. Given the array of scholarly approaches to Plato, there are many interpretive frameworks available to Plato scholars, and Jones and Nakazawa have certainly embraced one that has long had a great deal of influence. Had they drawn more on scholarship about Plato’s use of character and drama, their conclusion would be the same and no less original and important: Habituation and epiphany are central to the Platonic theory of moral education.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"19 1","pages":"208 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14778785211029758","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44459197","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}