scholarly journals A student’s and a teacher's right to freedom of education

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. SF1-SF28
Author(s):  
Eugene Matusov
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Final Word ◽  
Critical Dialogue ◽  
Dialogic Pedagogy ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Undergraduate Psychology ◽  
The Right

This conceptual essay, which opens the special issue, examines why a student’s right to freedom of education – the right for a student to define their own education – is so crucial for the education itself. Four diverse educational approaches are considered: training, closed socialization, open socialization, and critical examination, along with the Bakhtinian dialogic pedagogy to reveal the need for freedom of education within each of the approaches and the pedagogy. The eight aspects of the right to freedom are explicated. Three major objections against the right are considered and rebuked: 1) the Kantian paradox of autonomy and paternalism in education, 2) the paradox of learning and ignorance, and 3) fear of non-participation in education without coercion. The legitimate limitations of the right are discussed. Finally, the two major pathways to the right – radical and gradual – are analyzed. I sent the earlier draft of the paper to the Dialogic Pedagogy journal community, asking for critical commentaries. Many people submitted their critical commentaries involving their agreements, disagreements, associative readings, extensions, evaluations, and so on. My paper, their commentaries constitute this special, and my reply constitutes this special issue. Three people – David Kirshner, Belkacem TAIEB, and Jim Rietmulder – chose to provide commentaries on the margins. I included most of their comments on the margins as a new genre to promote a critical dialogue in our readers. Also, Belkacem TAIEB and Matthew Shumski submitted short commentaries that I included, below, at the end of this article as Appendix I and II. Jim Cresswell shared the manuscript with his undergraduate psychology students, and one student volunteered to add her commentary. Shelly Price-Jones shared it with her international undergraduate students studying English at a South Korean university. Twenty-one of them chose to provide a video reply. I selected a few of them that attracted my attention. Finally, I chose to address some of the issues brought in the presented critical commentaries either as my reply on the margins or at the end of this special issue. This should not be taken as “the final word” in the debate, but rather a dialogic response inviting other responses in the authors and in the audience.

scholarly journals Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Matusov ◽  
Kiyotaka Miyazaki
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
International Society ◽  
The Other ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Final Word ◽  
Research Conference ◽  
Dialogic Pedagogy ◽  
The Third ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
Counter Argument

In September 2011 in Rome at the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research conference, Eugene Matusov (USA), Kiyotaka Miyazaki (Japan), Jayne White (New Zealand), and Olga Dysthe (Norway) organized a symposium on Dialogic Pedagogy. Formally during the symposium and informally after the symposium several heated discussions started among the participants about the nature of dialogic pedagogy. The uniting theme of these discussions was a strong commitment by all four participants to apply the dialogic framework developed by Soviet-Russian philosopher and literary theoretician Bakhtin to education. In this special issue, Eugene Matusov (USA) and Kiyotaka Miyazaki (Japan) have developed only three of the heated issues discussed at the symposium in a form of dialogic exchanges (dialogue-disagreements). We invited our Dialogic Pedagogy colleagues Jayne White (New Zealand) and Olga Dysthe (Norway) to write commentaries on the dialogues. Fortunately, Jayne White kindly accepted the request and wrote her commentary. Unfortunately, Olga Dysthe could not participate due to her prior commitments to other projects. We also invited Ana Marjanovic-Shane (USA), Beth Ferholt (USA), Rupert Wegerif (UK), and Paul Sullivan (UK) to comment on Eugene-Kiyotaka dialogue-disagreement.                The first two heated issues were initiated by Eugene Matusov by providing a typology of different conceptual approaches to Dialogic Pedagogy that he had noticed in education. Specifically, the debate with Kiyotaka Miyazaki (and the other two participants) was around three types of Dialogic Pedagogy defined by Eugene Matusov: instrumental, epistemological, and ontological types of Dialogic Pedagogy. Specifically, Eugene Matusov subscribes to ontological dialogic pedagogy arguing that dialogic pedagogy should be built around students’ important existing or emergent life interests, concerns, questions, and needs. He challenged both instrumental dialogic pedagogy that is mostly interested in using dialogic interactional format of instruction to make students effectively arrive at preset curricular endpoints and epistemological dialogic pedagogy that is most interested in production of new knowledge for students. Kiyotaka Miyazaki (and other participants) found this typology not to be useful and challenged the values behind it. Kiyotaka Miyazaki introduced the third heated topic of treating students as “heroes” of the teacher’s polyphonic pedagogy similar to Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novel based on Bakhtin’s analysis. Eugene Matusov took issue with treating students as “heroes” of teacher’s polyphonic pedagogy arguing that in Dialogic Pedagogy students author their own education and their own becoming.                Originally, we wanted to present our Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy in the following format. An initiator of a heated topic develops his argument, the opponent provides a counter-argument, and then the initiator has an opportunity to reply with his “final word” (of course, we know that there is no “final word” in a dialogue). However, after Eugene Matusov developed two of his heated topics, Kiyotaka Miyazaki wanted to reply to both of them in one unified response, rather than two separate replies. Jayne White, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Beth Ferholt, and Paul Sullivan wrote commentaries about the entire exchange and these commentaries should be treated as part of our Dialogue on Dialogic Pedagogy. We hope that readers, interested in Dialogic Pedagogy, will join our heated Dialogue-Disagreement and will introduce more heated topics.

I’ll Read That!: What Title Elements Attract Readers to an Article?

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-31
Author(s):  
Robert M. Hallock ◽  
Tara N. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Undergraduate Psychology

The title of an article is the first chance at catching a reader’s attention. We set to develop a list of title attributes that lead to attractive titles in psychology papers, which could then be used to help instruct undergraduate students on how to write good titles for their papers and projects. Currently, research into successful elements that comprise an effective title is generally limited to publication metrics (the number of hits and citations an article has). Here, we created and administered a survey to 99 undergraduate students to rate the effectiveness of titles of psychology papers that varied in length, use of colons, acronyms, clichés, being results-oriented, and phrased the title as a question. We then reworded these titles as the opposite choice (e.g., we made a longer title shorter or took the colon out of a title without changing the meaning or length). We found that participants significantly preferred long over short titles, titles containing colons over the absence of a colon, and titles phrased as questions. We hope our results aid in the instruction of writing in the discipline, and that undergraduate psychology students and authors alike can develop more effective and attractive titles to attract attention from scholars and invite broader audiences to read their work.

Contributions to the History of Psychology: CII. Attitudinal Shifts in Responses to ‘Psychological Prescriptions’ among Undergraduate Students in a ‘Systems of Psychology’ Course

1995 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 840-842
Author(s):  
William F. Vitulli
Keyword(s):  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
History Of Psychology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Undergraduate Psychology ◽  
Psychology Course

18 contrasting pairs of psychological prescriptions formed the basis of a rating scale upon which 25 undergraduate psychology students (5 men and 20 women) enrolled in a course in “systems of psychology” indicated their “attitudinal preferences.” An analysis of variance, followed by pair-wise comparisons using t tests for correlated samples taken at the beginning and end of the quarter showed a trend toward endorsements of more “phenomenological” as compared to “operational” prescriptions.

scholarly journals Examining Eating Habits of Undergraduate Psychology Students

Eureka ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
Wendy Salvisberg ◽  
Peter Tom ◽  
Sandra Ziolkowski
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Parenting Styles ◽  
Eating Habits ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Parent Care ◽  
Unhealthy Eating ◽  
Undergraduate Psychology ◽  
And Control ◽  
Dieting Behaviors

The current study examined the relationship between parenting styles, eating and dieting behaviors, and self-esteem in undergraduate psychology students. Standardized assessments of eating and dieting behaviors, parent care and control, and self-esteem were collected from 99 undergraduate psychology students in November 2012. Expected associations of parent care and control with undergraduate students’ eating and dieting habits and self-esteem were not found; however, results indicating the influence of mother care and father control on potential eating disorder diagnosis and self-esteem were discovered. Together, these results suggest that more research is needed to explore other characteristics of parenting that may be more related to unhealthy eating and dieting behaviours and self-esteem.

scholarly journals Values in dialogic pedagogy

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Matusov ◽  
Jay Lemke
Keyword(s):  
Critical Examination ◽  
Critical Dialogue ◽  
Dialogic Teaching ◽  
Hand Shaping ◽  
Dialogic Pedagogy ◽  
Reflective Dialogue ◽  
Teaching Values ◽  
Interesting Discussion ◽  
The One ◽  
Successful Teaching

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

Self-Contact and Gesturing in Different Stimulus Situations: Relationship with Cerebral Dominance

1982 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1003-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vezio Ruggieri ◽  
Carlotta Celli ◽  
Antonella Crescenzi
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Cerebral Dominance ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Self ◽  
Female Undergraduate ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Undergraduate Psychology ◽  
The Right

The relationships among self-contact and gesturing scores of 27 female undergraduate psychology students in 2 neutral and 2 emotional stimulus situations have been examined. To study the role of cerebral dominance, the self-contact and gesturing behaviors produced by the left and right halves of the body have been separately analyzed. In the emotional situations there was enhancement of the self-contact score on the left side of the body, but in one of the two, self-contact scores on the left were associated with high free-gesturing scores on the right side of the body. The self-contact score increases on the right side of the body in the situation of a first social interaction. The role of the self-contact as an anxiety-reducing system is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document