从批判性思维到批判性思维,再回到批判性思维

IF 0.8 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
H. Pettersson
{"title":"从批判性思维到批判性思维,再回到批判性思维","authors":"H. Pettersson","doi":"10.1093/jopedu/qhad021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper assesses the prospects of combining the distinctive strengths of the two major educational research programs of critical thinking and critical pedagogy—or, described more accurately, overcoming their shared limitations—in a new and superior educational objective called criticality. Several recent proposals explore the possibilities of engaging in bridgebuilding between these camps. The plan is that the distinctive strengths of these paradigms—the logical and epistemological precision of critical thinking together with the socio-political consciousness of critical pedagogy—could complement each other, while the associated adjustments to the overall picture could also help us to address their shared shortcomings. This gives us a new and more grounded educational goal of criticality, as suggested and developed independently by a growing number of thinkers (e.g. Burbules and Berk 1999; Davies 2014; Davies and Barnett 2015; Sibbett 2016; Shpeizer 2018). My article joins this on-going conversation but provides a more counter-reactionary tone by striving to vindicate the traditional mainstream conception of critical thinking. I maintain that despite their admirable ambitions, the various expressions of criticality do not succeed in combining the best parts of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, since on a deep meta-theoretical level these two paradigms have irreconcilable core principles. First, I argue that the depiction of the failures of critical thinking used to motivate criticality is to a large degree a strawman: in actuality, the existing conceptualization of critical thinking can already do the desired extra socio-political educational work, so there really is no pressing need for the suggested new augmentations. Second, the traditional worries of indoctrination, that have followed critical pedagogy since the inception of this educational movement, still remain unresolved within criticality. The only way to successfully address this concern is to lean on critical thinking as the core of our educational theory, bringing us right back to where started.","PeriodicalId":47223,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From critical thinking to criticality and back again\",\"authors\":\"H. Pettersson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jopedu/qhad021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper assesses the prospects of combining the distinctive strengths of the two major educational research programs of critical thinking and critical pedagogy—or, described more accurately, overcoming their shared limitations—in a new and superior educational objective called criticality. Several recent proposals explore the possibilities of engaging in bridgebuilding between these camps. The plan is that the distinctive strengths of these paradigms—the logical and epistemological precision of critical thinking together with the socio-political consciousness of critical pedagogy—could complement each other, while the associated adjustments to the overall picture could also help us to address their shared shortcomings. This gives us a new and more grounded educational goal of criticality, as suggested and developed independently by a growing number of thinkers (e.g. Burbules and Berk 1999; Davies 2014; Davies and Barnett 2015; Sibbett 2016; Shpeizer 2018). My article joins this on-going conversation but provides a more counter-reactionary tone by striving to vindicate the traditional mainstream conception of critical thinking. I maintain that despite their admirable ambitions, the various expressions of criticality do not succeed in combining the best parts of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, since on a deep meta-theoretical level these two paradigms have irreconcilable core principles. First, I argue that the depiction of the failures of critical thinking used to motivate criticality is to a large degree a strawman: in actuality, the existing conceptualization of critical thinking can already do the desired extra socio-political educational work, so there really is no pressing need for the suggested new augmentations. Second, the traditional worries of indoctrination, that have followed critical pedagogy since the inception of this educational movement, still remain unresolved within criticality. The only way to successfully address this concern is to lean on critical thinking as the core of our educational theory, bringing us right back to where started.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文评估了将批判性思维和批判性教育学这两个主要教育研究项目的独特优势——或者更准确地说,克服它们的共同局限——结合在一个名为批判性的新的卓越教育目标中的前景。最近的几项提议探讨了在这些营地之间建立桥梁的可能性。计划是,这些范式的独特优势——批判性思维的逻辑和认识论准确性,以及批判性教育学的社会政治意识——可以相互补充,而对整体情况的相关调整也可以帮助我们解决它们的共同缺点。这为我们提供了一个新的、更接地气的批判性教育目标,正如越来越多的思想家所建议和独立发展的那样(例如,Burbules和Berk 1999;戴维斯2014;戴维斯和巴内特2015;西贝特2016;什佩泽2018)。我的文章加入了这场正在进行的对话,但通过努力证明传统主流批判性思维的正确性,提供了一种更为反反动的基调。我坚持认为,尽管批判性的各种表达有着令人钦佩的雄心,但它们并没有成功地将批判性思维和批判性教育学的最佳部分结合起来,因为在深层元理论层面上,这两种范式有着不可调和的核心原则。首先,我认为,对用于激励批判性思维的批判性思维失败的描述在很大程度上是一种束缚:事实上,现有的批判性思维概念化已经可以完成所需的额外社会政治教育工作,因此确实没有迫切需要提出新的补充。其次,自这场教育运动开始以来,批判教育法一直伴随着灌输的传统担忧,但在批判中仍未解决。成功解决这一问题的唯一方法是将批判性思维作为我们教育理论的核心,让我们回到起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From critical thinking to criticality and back again
This paper assesses the prospects of combining the distinctive strengths of the two major educational research programs of critical thinking and critical pedagogy—or, described more accurately, overcoming their shared limitations—in a new and superior educational objective called criticality. Several recent proposals explore the possibilities of engaging in bridgebuilding between these camps. The plan is that the distinctive strengths of these paradigms—the logical and epistemological precision of critical thinking together with the socio-political consciousness of critical pedagogy—could complement each other, while the associated adjustments to the overall picture could also help us to address their shared shortcomings. This gives us a new and more grounded educational goal of criticality, as suggested and developed independently by a growing number of thinkers (e.g. Burbules and Berk 1999; Davies 2014; Davies and Barnett 2015; Sibbett 2016; Shpeizer 2018). My article joins this on-going conversation but provides a more counter-reactionary tone by striving to vindicate the traditional mainstream conception of critical thinking. I maintain that despite their admirable ambitions, the various expressions of criticality do not succeed in combining the best parts of critical thinking and critical pedagogy, since on a deep meta-theoretical level these two paradigms have irreconcilable core principles. First, I argue that the depiction of the failures of critical thinking used to motivate criticality is to a large degree a strawman: in actuality, the existing conceptualization of critical thinking can already do the desired extra socio-political educational work, so there really is no pressing need for the suggested new augmentations. Second, the traditional worries of indoctrination, that have followed critical pedagogy since the inception of this educational movement, still remain unresolved within criticality. The only way to successfully address this concern is to lean on critical thinking as the core of our educational theory, bringing us right back to where started.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Journal of Philosophy of Education publishes articles representing a wide variety of philosophical traditions. They vary from examination of fundamental philosophical issues in their connection with education, to detailed critical engagement with current educational practice or policy from a philosophical point of view. The journal aims to promote rigorous thinking on educational matters and to identify and criticise the ideological forces shaping education. Ethical, political, aesthetic and epistemological dimensions of educational theory are amongst those covered.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信