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

Educational Justice: Knowledge, Form...

Nikolaidis, Alexandros Charalampos.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Educational Justice: Knowledge, Formation, and Pedagogical Responsibility.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Educational Justice: Knowledge, Formation, and Pedagogical Responsibility./
作者:	Nikolaidis, Alexandros Charalampos.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2023,
面頁冊數:	419 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-04, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-04A.
標題:	Ethics. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30788289
ISBN:	9798380595261

Educational Justice: Knowledge, Formation, and Pedagogical Responsibility.
Nikolaidis, Alexandros Charalampos.

Educational Justice: Knowledge, Formation, and Pedagogical Responsibility. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023 - 419 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-04, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Ohio State University, 2023.

Educational justice has traditionally been conceptualized in non-educational terms. Categories of justice with economic and political clout dominate scholarly conversations about educational justice and inform educational policymaking and practice. This leads to a narrow conceptualization of educational justice in distributive terms. The author challenges the hegemony of the dominant paradigm and advances a new paradigm for theorizing educational justice to inform educational research, policymaking, and practice. In developing this new paradigm, the dissertation first establishes the dominance of distributive justice as a guiding principle of US education policy and as a lens for theorizing educational injustice in educational research. It offers a historical analysis of federal education policy focused on the principles of justice that underpinned the policies enacted. Moreover, it presents limitations of distributive justice, thereby, establishing the need to reconsider our understanding of what constitutes an educational injustice and what policies are appropriate for disrupting such injustices. Second, the dissertation advances an account of educational injustice that centers on the obstruction of two distinctly educational tasks: knowledge acquisition and self-formation. In doing so, it reorients education policy and research toward two distinctly educational injustices: epistemic oppression and developmental coercion. It is argued that these are severe educational wrongs that also contribute to pressing social problems and injustices. The dissertation concludes by outlining implications of replacing the standard distributive paradigm with a democratic paradigm of epistemic empowerment and developmental enablement that fosters epistemic agency and disrupts the impact of harmful ideology on moral and intellectual development. It suggests that the new paradigm compels us to reconsider that nature of educational injustice and, relatedly, the locus and scope of pedagogical responsibility for its disruption. Moreover, it outlines principles and conditions that are necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, for educational justice to obtain and provides recommendations for action at the individual, collective, and policy level that align with these principles and conditions.

ISBN: 9798380595261Subjects--Topical Terms:

517264
Ethics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Educational justice

Educational Justice: Knowledge, Formation, and Pedagogical Responsibility.
LDR:03663nmm a2200445 4500 001 2404370
005 20241209114614.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2023 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798380595261
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30788289
035 $a (MiAaPQ)OhioLINKosu1686340950791366
035 $a AAI30788289
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Nikolaidis, Alexandros Charalampos. $3 3774684
245 1 0 $a Educational Justice: Knowledge, Formation, and Pedagogical Responsibility.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2023
300 $a 419 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-04, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Warnick, Bryan R.;Thompson, Winston C.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Ohio State University, 2023.
520 $a Educational justice has traditionally been conceptualized in non-educational terms. Categories of justice with economic and political clout dominate scholarly conversations about educational justice and inform educational policymaking and practice. This leads to a narrow conceptualization of educational justice in distributive terms. The author challenges the hegemony of the dominant paradigm and advances a new paradigm for theorizing educational justice to inform educational research, policymaking, and practice. In developing this new paradigm, the dissertation first establishes the dominance of distributive justice as a guiding principle of US education policy and as a lens for theorizing educational injustice in educational research. It offers a historical analysis of federal education policy focused on the principles of justice that underpinned the policies enacted. Moreover, it presents limitations of distributive justice, thereby, establishing the need to reconsider our understanding of what constitutes an educational injustice and what policies are appropriate for disrupting such injustices. Second, the dissertation advances an account of educational injustice that centers on the obstruction of two distinctly educational tasks: knowledge acquisition and self-formation. In doing so, it reorients education policy and research toward two distinctly educational injustices: epistemic oppression and developmental coercion. It is argued that these are severe educational wrongs that also contribute to pressing social problems and injustices. The dissertation concludes by outlining implications of replacing the standard distributive paradigm with a democratic paradigm of epistemic empowerment and developmental enablement that fosters epistemic agency and disrupts the impact of harmful ideology on moral and intellectual development. It suggests that the new paradigm compels us to reconsider that nature of educational injustice and, relatedly, the locus and scope of pedagogical responsibility for its disruption. Moreover, it outlines principles and conditions that are necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, for educational justice to obtain and provides recommendations for action at the individual, collective, and policy level that align with these principles and conditions.
590 $a School code: 0168.
650 4 $a Ethics. $3 517264
650 4 $a Epistemology. $3 896969
650 4 $a Education history. $3 3171959
650 4 $a Education policy. $3 2191387
650 4 $a Public policy. $3 532803
650 4 $a Educational philosophy. $3 3173367
653 $a Educational justice
653 $a Distributive justice
653 $a Epistemic justice
653 $a Formative justice
653 $a Formative epistemic justice
653 $a Epistemic oppression
690 $a 0520
690 $a 0630
690 $a 0394
690 $a 0998
690 $a 0458
690 $a 0393
710 2 $a The Ohio State University. $b Educational Studies. $3 3173395
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-04A.
790 $a 0168
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2023
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30788289