Suchergebnisse

Through my autobiographical reflective ethnography of my Soviet childhood, schooling and teaching, I try to investigate the phenomenon of political multiple consciousness that I observed in the USSR and its development in children. In my analysis, I abstracted eight diverse types of consciousness, five of which are political in their nature.

Modern conventional education is full of impositions on its students. Schools often impose on students where they must be, what they must do and learn, how they must behave and communicate in the places and the ways that the teacher and school define. However, the legitimacy of this imposition – how much of this imposition is necessary, useful, justified, and desirable for education itself – has not been specifically discussed and analyzed yet. The legitimacy of this imposition is especially important to do for innovative education, evaluating and reconsidering its goals and practices of education. Analysis of imposition in education can help to address important questions of why oppression, alienation, if not pedagogical violence, are so prevalent in organized education and whether this is can be avoided or not. The goal of this paper is to consider different approaches to non-negotiable imposition in education, its legitimacy, and justifications and analyze their pros and cons. I consider Totalizing conventional, Capitalist, Progressive, Democratic, Anarchist, and Communitarian educational approaches to non-negotiable imposition and its legitimacy from an educational perspective.

As a sociocultural educator and scholar, I have always been ambivalent about No Child Left Behind's slogan. I like its democratic ideal of "education without failure," but I do not like the current educational policies guided by a neoliberal ideology. This article begins a discussion about what a No Student Left Behind educational practice might look like from a sociocultural democratic education perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the notion of internalization which mainly stemmed from Vygotsky's work and to provide a critique of this concept as being favorably biased toward specific sociocultural practices common in industrial societies. These practices involve global networks of alienated and decontextualized activities overemphasizing the value of people's independent solo activity and de-emphasizing the social nature of solo activities. The internalization model of cultural development, emphasizing transformation of social functions into individual skills, leads to a chain of mutually related dualisms between oppositional abstractions such as the social and the individual, the external and the internal, and the environment and the organism. Attempts to bridge these dualistic gaps seem problematic because these dual abstractions mutually constitute each other and are, thus, inseparable from the beginning. An alternative model, the participation model of cultural development (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990), which has recently emerged in different areas of the social sciences, seems helpful in overcoming such dualism inherent in the internalization model. The participation model considers individual cultural development as a validated process of transformation of individual participation in sociocultural activity. Transformation of participation involves assuming changed responsibility for the activity, redefining membership in a community of practice, and changing the sociocultural practice itself. In this paper, I argue that the participation model may be a more helpful conceptual tool for analyzing development in diverse sociocultural practices where participants' solo activities are not necessarily privileged and emphasized. Unlike the internalization model, the participation model seems to be able to address development equally well in both decontextualized and situated sociocultural practices. It also generates exploration of new questions.

In November 2014 on the Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Facebook page, there was an interesting discussion of the issue of values in dialogic pedagogy[1]. The main issue can be characterized as the following. Should dialogic pedagogy teach values? Should it avoid teaching values? Is there some kind of a third approach? The participants of the Facebook discussions were focusing on teaching values in dialogic pedagogy and not about teaching aboutvalues. On the one hand, it seems to be impossible to avoid teaching values. However, on the other hand, shaping students in some preset molding is apparently non-dialogic and uncritical (Matusov, 2009). In the former case, successful teaching is defined by how well and deeply the students accept and commit to the taught values. In the latter case, successful dialogic teaching may be defined by students' critical examination of their own values against alternative values in a critical dialogue. Below, Eugene Matusov and Jay Lemke, active participants of this Facebook dialogue, provide their reflection on this important issue and encourage readers to join their reflective dialogue.[1] See in a public Facebook domain: https://www.facebook.com/DialogicPedagogyJournal/posts/894734337204533, https://www.facebook.com/DialogicPedagogyJournal/posts/896916850319615

We define genuine education as students' active leisurely pursuit of critical examination of the self, life, society and the world. It is driven by the person's interests, inquiries, needs, tensions, and puzzlements. Thus, it is based on the students' ownership of their own education, rather than on the society's needs and impositions on the students. Hence, genuine education cannot be forced on the students, but rather the students need to be supported and guided to find and pursue their own education as their existential need. We view genuine education as students' authorship based on the students' learning activism. In our opinion, the primary condition for the students' ownership of their education is the students' freedom to participate in making decisions about their education. In our paper, we discuss pedagogical experimentation aimed at promoting learning activism and ownership of their own education through critical dialogue and democratic self-governance.However, to our surprise, we found out that merely engaging students in decision making about their own education does not work for many students. After several years of practicing the Open Syllabus pedagogical regime in our undergraduate and graduate classes, we have experienced and abstracted two major mutually related problems: a problem of "culture" and a problem of "self-failure." The issue of "culture" involved a tension between building a new democratic educational culture while practicing it. We also found that our undergraduate and graduate education students do not follow their own freely chosen educational commitments, and thus they feel betrayed by themselves. Analyzing students' reflections on the self-failures, we found that they felt pressured by life and institutional survival and necessities. Because of that, they did not have the luxury of prioritizing their own educational self-commitments. In response to this and other concerns, we developed a hybrid pedagogical regime, called Opening Syllabus. We focus on tensions within this new, hybrid pedagogical regime, by analyzing students' reflections and contributions in class.

Currently, in institutionalized education, the balance between global and local forces is skewed in favor of the global through the State (and University) monopoly on educational philosophy. We think that the local has to be prioritized over the global in the balance of these forces. In our view, this promotion should occur both in depth (through open pedagogical experimentation and democratization, defining local values, creating a global dialogue), AND in breadth (through providing opportunities for students and parents to join and financially afford it). We propose that education has to be separated from the State. In our proposal, the State should focus on providing financial access to K-12 education for all citizens through redistribution of taxes while constraining itself through pedagogical neutrality: accepting any educational philosophy for public funding. In our paper, we will consider some of many diverse concerns raised by our colleagues in response to our radical proposal of the State's educational neutrality, organized in a question-answer format.

In this multi-topic interview, Professor Eugene Matusov from the School of Education at the University of Delaware discusses the desirability and necessity for a psychological and educational shift from knowledge, ability, and skill to dialogically and a democratically understood notion of authorial agency. In this discussion, Professor Matusov tells about his own transition from his interest in Vygotsky to Bakhtin, discusses conceptual and ethical tensions among these scholars, and how his pedagogical practice informs his educational research. Professor Matusov provides a somewhat optimistic view on the transition of our society from knowledge-based to agency-based and discusses the role of education in this transformation. The interview was audio recorded and transcribed following closely the discussion. We tried to preserve both orality and the Russian and Serbian accents of the participants without sacrificing the readability of the text. ; notReviewed ; publishedVersion

In this article, we explain, explore, and problematize the formation, organization, leadership, and daily educational life of the first (to our knowledge) international democratic university of students (UniS) in the 21st century. UniS is run by the students, for the students, and with the students for their diverse purposes, desires, interests, and needs. A student is anyone who freely chooses to study something for whatever reason. Everyone can become a student at any time without any high school credits, fees, bureaucracy, tests, or any other form of human suffering. But what exactly is UniS? Why students? What if…? How can one visualize UniS, which is "so vague, so bizarre, so unnecessary to me!" What are its philosophical principles? Who are we? What does the University of Students look like? In the spirit of curiosity, wonder, leisure, fun, freedom, and love for learning, we invite the reader to attend and connect with two working edu-clubs of UniS: a movie club "Schooling Around the World and Time" and an "Educationalist Club." In addition, we discuss some of the main issues, limitations, and challenges, including the civilization of the necessities, colonization of the human spirit by the economy, a lack of genuine leisure, and toxification of the human by foisted education. The open-ended, poetic conclusion lets the readers form their own interpretations, ideas, questions, and answers about UniS. What is the future of UniS? And only time will tell, 10, 100 years later or 100 light-years from now.

AbstractThis study examined the planning that occurred when children participated in classroom playcrafting with either adult or child leadership. In a first‐/second‐grade classroom in an innovative public school, we videotaped 11 sessions in which children volunteered to develop a play with small groups of classmates and seven sessions in which adult volunteers (parents and a grandparent) developed plays with small groups of children. The plays were crafted in one session of about an hour, and then usually performed for the class.More planning took place during child‐ than adult‐directed sessions (averaging 92 vs. 35 percent of the session's duration). The groups led by children were more frequently involved in planning of themes, planning of details of the themes, and especially in improvisationally mindstorming ideas than were the groups led by adults. In adult‐directed sessions, the adults often planned the play before the children joined the activity, and the children spent most of the session in non‐playplanning activities such as gluing and coloring puppets or rehearsal of lines designed by the adult in advance. We argue that opportunities to observe and participate in planning—which occurred more frequently in child‐directed than adult‐directed sessions—are important to the development of planning skills and of co‐ordination of plans with others.

In 2016, the Main Editors of Dialogic Pedagogy Journal issued a call for papers and contributions to a wide range of dialogic pedagogy scholars and practitioners. One of the scholars who responded to our call is famous American educator Ira Shor, a professor at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York. Shor has been influenced by Paulo Freire with whom he published, among other books, "A Pedagogy for Liberation" (1986), the very first "talking book" Freire did with a collaborator. His work in education is about empowering and liberating practice, which is why it has become a central feature of critical pedagogy.Shor's work has touched on themes that resonate with Dialogic Pedagogy (DP). He emphasises the importance of students becoming empowered by ensuring that their experiences are brought to bear. We were excited when Shor responded to our call for papers with an interesting proposal: an interview that could be published in DPJ, and we enthusiastically accepted his offer. The DPJ Main Editors contacted the DPJ community members and asked them to submit questions for Ira. The result is an exciting in-depth interview with him that revolved around six topics: (1) Social Justice; (2) Dialogism; (3) Democratic Higher Education; (4) Critical Literacy versus Traditional Literacy; (5) Paulo Freire and Critical Pedagogy; and (6) Language and Thought. Following the interview, we reflect on complimentary themes and tensions that emerge between Shor's approach to critical pedagogy and DP.

AbstractIn this paper we apply a dynamic systems perspective to infant emotional development. We propose that emotions are not states but self‐organizing dynamic processes intimately tied to the flow of an individual's activity in a context. We review data on the relationship between emotional actions and the social context, in particular the development of smiling and laughter. These data are more adequately explained by our perspective than by other theories of emotional development. We provide a model for how emotional processes in early infancy become embedded into sociocultural systems, and suggest new avenues of research on emotional development.