東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Is Inquiry Learning Unjust? An Ethic...

Tanchuk, Nicolas J.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Is Inquiry Learning Unjust? An Ethical Defense of Deweyan Instructional Design.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Is Inquiry Learning Unjust? An Ethical Defense of Deweyan Instructional Design./
作者:	Tanchuk, Nicolas J.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2019,
面頁冊數:	212 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 80-12, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International80-12A.
標題:	Pedagogy. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13863105
ISBN:	9781392180204

Is Inquiry Learning Unjust? An Ethical Defense of Deweyan Instructional Design.
Tanchuk, Nicolas J.

Is Inquiry Learning Unjust? An Ethical Defense of Deweyan Instructional Design. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019 - 212 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 80-12, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Columbia University, 2019.

This item must not be added to any third party search indexes.

A long tradition of progressive pedagogy, running from Jean-Jacques Rousseau and through the work of John Dewey, argues that it is ethically and politically important for students to learn to co-direct the process of inquiry. In a series of recent articles, a group of cognitive scientists (hereafter called 'DI theorists') has argued that due to the nature of human cognitive architecture, student-led instructional designs are likely to be less effective than fully teacher-led instructional designs and to exacerbate achievement gaps. Were DI theorists correct, contrary to the intentions of many educators, a great deal of progressive pedagogy would be likely to have negative effects on educational justice. In this dissertation, I argue that the framing of the debate in cognitive science misconstrues the ethical and political value of treating students as cooperative designers of educative experiences.To defend this controversial claim, I advance a Deweyan approach to ethics and justice in instructional design against two recent philosophical challenges. The first challenge, which I call 'Dewey's grounding problem', asserts that Dewey's appeal to the single ethical and political value of learning is unjustified against dissent and oppressive of reasonable pluralism. The second challenge, which I call 'Dewey's problem of elitism', argues that his call to promote the common good of learning in ethics and politics will sometimes permit or require elitism, aristocracy, or tyranny. Based on the Deweyan ethos I defend, I trace four principles of just instructional design to reassess the claims of DI theorists. I argue that integrating DI theorists' insights about efficacy and equality as means to create a student co-led community of inquiry confirms many educators' intuitions: that student-led designs are important parts of developing the skills of inquiry, are well placed as culminating tasks, and are best phased in on a developmental pathway towards greater student independence.

ISBN: 9781392180204Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122828
Pedagogy.

Is Inquiry Learning Unjust? An Ethical Defense of Deweyan Instructional Design.
LDR:03175nmm a2200349 4500 001 2208547
005 20191021073500.5
008 201008s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781392180204
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI13863105
035 $a (MiAaPQ)columbia:15237
035 $a AAI13863105
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Tanchuk, Nicolas J. $3 3435584
245 1 0 $a Is Inquiry Learning Unjust? An Ethical Defense of Deweyan Instructional Design.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2019
300 $a 212 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 80-12, Section: A.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Advisor: Hansen, David T.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Columbia University, 2019.
506 $a This item must not be added to any third party search indexes.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a A long tradition of progressive pedagogy, running from Jean-Jacques Rousseau and through the work of John Dewey, argues that it is ethically and politically important for students to learn to co-direct the process of inquiry. In a series of recent articles, a group of cognitive scientists (hereafter called 'DI theorists') has argued that due to the nature of human cognitive architecture, student-led instructional designs are likely to be less effective than fully teacher-led instructional designs and to exacerbate achievement gaps. Were DI theorists correct, contrary to the intentions of many educators, a great deal of progressive pedagogy would be likely to have negative effects on educational justice. In this dissertation, I argue that the framing of the debate in cognitive science misconstrues the ethical and political value of treating students as cooperative designers of educative experiences.To defend this controversial claim, I advance a Deweyan approach to ethics and justice in instructional design against two recent philosophical challenges. The first challenge, which I call 'Dewey's grounding problem', asserts that Dewey's appeal to the single ethical and political value of learning is unjustified against dissent and oppressive of reasonable pluralism. The second challenge, which I call 'Dewey's problem of elitism', argues that his call to promote the common good of learning in ethics and politics will sometimes permit or require elitism, aristocracy, or tyranny. Based on the Deweyan ethos I defend, I trace four principles of just instructional design to reassess the claims of DI theorists. I argue that integrating DI theorists' insights about efficacy and equality as means to create a student co-led community of inquiry confirms many educators' intuitions: that student-led designs are important parts of developing the skills of inquiry, are well placed as culminating tasks, and are best phased in on a developmental pathway towards greater student independence.
590 $a School code: 0054.
650 4 $a Pedagogy. $3 2122828
650 4 $a Educational psychology. $3 517650
650 4 $a Education philosophy. $3 3422391
690 $a 0456
690 $a 0525
690 $a 0998
710 2 $a Columbia University. $b Philosophy and Education. $3 3435585
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 80-12A.
790 $a 0054
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2019
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13863105