Search

This paper criticizes mainstream philosophical justifications for paternalism in children's education, highlighting their exclusion of students labelled with intellectual disability. Most philosophical justifications of paternalism presume "able-mindedness" -- that is, they presume that learners possess the potential to develop capacities of rationality and autonomy considered normal -- and normatively superior -- for adults. Prioritizing these able-minded norms obscures educationally worthwhile communicative, reasoning, and behavioural capacities that diverge from able-minded norms, but which nevertheless express forms of rational and epistemic agency that are educationally beneficial. The paper argues that able-mindedness therefore constitutes a conceptually impoverished basis for educational paternalism. A number of harmful educational implications of able-minded educational paternalism are explored and a more promising and inclusive avenue for justifying educational paternalism is briefly outlined.

In study abroad programs, overall student participation and the representation of minoritized students continue to rise, but barriers to participation for minoritized students persist, especially in engineering. As we strive to broaden participation in engineering study abroad programs, we must critically examine the experiences of minoritized students who engage in these programs so we can facilitate supportive educational environments. This study examines the experiences of minoritized students in a global engineering study abroad program, using the concept of habitus, a student's collection of identities and embodied cultural capital. We find that students draw on various forms of habitus while studying abroad, connecting their new experiences abroad to their prior experiences. Based on these findings, we make recommendations for designing more equitable and inclusive study abroad programming elements.

Dissent is conceptualized as a largely able-minded political expression. Ashley Taylor argues in this essay that educational philosophers, therefore, lack an understanding of dissent that can capture the politically relevant expressions of students labeled with significant disabilities. While traditional frameworks of dissent may capture many of the ways disabled activists and their nondisabled allies have challenged oppressive social structures, these models nevertheless rely on a conceptualization of dissent that fails to make sense of the political agency of people understood as having significant intellectual disabilities. Taylor reframes the embodied and localized refusals and transgressions of labeled students as forms of politically relevant dissent, drawing on her own observational data from the classroom as well as the ethnographic work of researchers in the field of disability studies in education. By developing a richer and experientially-based understanding of dissent, Taylor offers an alternative conceptual orientation toward dissent that has normative implications for theorists and practitioners alike.

In this article, we explore the interrelated phenomena of teachers' paternalistic aims and their misattributions of the agency of their students within particular schooling contexts of systemic racial injustice in the United States. We argue that, because teachers in these contexts assess agency in patterned, predictable ways that stem from -- and reify -- preexisting unjust patterns of oppression, teachers are unreliable evaluators of the conditions necessary for just punishment. To build this argument, we explore a complex case in which authorities regularly fail to meet these conditions: the punishment of Black girls in low-income, urban, predominantly non-White primary and secondary schools in the United States. Through our analysis, we offer a new concept, excess agency misattribution, which raises serious questions about subjective justifications for punishment in contexts of entrenched injustice. By delineating how the perceptions of teachers influence both the putative justifying aims and targeted recipients of punishment, we demonstrate how the existing terrain of school punishment practices ought to affect our normative reasoning about the fairness of punishment in these contexts.

Disabled refugees experience multiple barriers through the process of resettlement, and yet, their perspectives are rarely solicited in discussions of refugee policy and practice. This article focuses on the life history and resettlement experiences of Samir Omar, a disabled refugee, who recounts how he learned to navigate resettlement through his interactions with the state. Data for this article comes from a three year, multisited, multilingual ethnography conducted with refugee families who have been recently resettled to the United States. This larger study, in which Samir was a participant, examined the ways refugees' encounters with the state come to bear on their embodiments and understandings of citizenship. Leveraging a critical disability studies theoretical lens, we analyze the production of Samir's disability through displacement and resettlement, as well as the framing of his disability as barring him from productive citizenship. We argue that the refugee resettlement process is inherently educative, resulting in Samir's sustained critique of the able-bodied norms of citizenship. Samir produces his own "curriculum of navigation" for disabled refugees that offers an alternative policy for resettlement and reframes able-bodied notions of dependency and self-sufficiency.

Background: Mixed methods research designs in engineering education often frame the "mixed" aspect of the design from the perspective of data collection. However, intentional mixing throughout the research design--particularly during data analysis--may enable richer meta-inferences about a phenomenon. Purpose: This paper provides examples of strategies for mixing during data analysis in mixed methods program evaluation in engineering education. Although the context is program evaluation, the procedures are applicable in engineering education research more broadly. Scope/Method: This review presents examples of mixed methods analysis strategies in the context of a data set with qualitative and quantitative data from a global engineering program at a large Mid-Atlantic university. The structure of the examples presents mixed research questions, pragmatic purposes for such studies, and examples of different mixing strategies for the analysis stage. The mixing strategies highlighted include extreme case sampling, converting, creating a blended variable, blending variables and themes across strands, and cross-case comparison. Conclusions: This review of mixed methods in program evaluation prompted a reflection of processes in the design of studies, how the designs are described beyond the usual taxonomies in the mixed methods literature, and implications for the greater community of engineering education researchers. Five mixed methods designs were formulated around the mixing strategies.

This study investigated the experiences of engineering students who participated in a cultural simulation activity to promote cross-cultural communication skills. A sample of 138 post-activity short reflections from a global engineering practice course were analyzed using qualitative inquiry. Results suggest that students recognize parallels between acclimating to the simulated culture in the cultural simulation activity and adjusting to a different country's culture while traveling abroad. Although the simulation was embedded in a pre-departure course for study abroad, the cultural simulation could also be used to develop cross-cultural communication in the classroom without traveling abroad.

The educational aims described by educational philosophers rarely embrace the full range of differences in intellectual ability, adaptive behavior, or communication that children exhibit. Because envisioned educational aims have significant consequences for how educational practices, pedagogy, and curricula are conceptualized, the failure to acknowledge and embrace differences in ability leaves open the question of the extent to which students with intellectual disabilities are subject to the same aims as their "typically-developing" peers. In articulating and defending valued aims of education, educational philosophers tacitly or expressly concede that particular aims will be ill suited to many children with intellectual disabilities, and that separate aims will therefore apply to them. This paper evaluates the philosophical reasoning behind this conclusion that some people, by necessity, must be governed by separate educational aims, to be decided separately and secondarily. The author calls this the "deferral stance." First, the paper outlines concerns about a particular ability-biased social and epistemic context in which theorizing about educational aims takes place. The author then examines assumptions that underpin the logic of deferral, arguing that the logic proves flawed when subjected to conceptual and empirical scrutiny. The paper concludes by outlining an inclusive approach--the affirmative stance--to theorizing about educational aims that resists the logic of exclusion and deferral.

Intellectual disability may appear to many as a barrier to participation in or the production of educational research. Indeed, a common perception of individuals seen as having cognitive impairments, and especially those with minimal or no verbal communication, is that they are incapable of the reasoning or lack the deliberative capacities necessary to participate in research or policy-influencing decision making. In this essay, Ashley Taylor dismantles these assumptions, challenging both the view of intellectual disability on which they rest and the view of epistemic competence they imply. Taylor shows how the absence or exclusion of people with intellectual disabilities labels from dominant knowledge-making institutions and arenas, including within educational research, amounts to injustice and results in their tacit or overt exclusion from civic education and political membership.

Disability studies in education scholars have discussed the need to engage students, and certainly preservice teachers, in critical discussion of disability as a concept. To better understand what such critical discussion entails, Ashley Taylor examines the pedagogical implications of promoting an understanding of disability as a shared experience of being human. In particular, Taylor is concerned with how the appeal to a shared experience of disability (which she calls "the shared reality view") might contribute to or impede students' development of critical attitudes toward ableist social and educational practices. She describes two chief limitations of the shared reality view and argues that these complicate efforts to teach about disability in ways that avoid reinforcing students' existing beliefs. Taylor concludes by offering a pedagogical framework that retains valuable aspects of the shared reality view while avoiding its limitations.

This study examines the experiences of doctoral students in a qualitative research course that centers culture throughout the research process. Data sources include one-on-one interviews, written documentation of course assignments, research team meetings, and doctoral students' conference proposals and publications examining civic learning and action and notions of citizenship of second- and 1.5-generation African immigrants in New York City. Using Tillman's framework for culturally sensitive research (CSR), we draw attention to the ways doctoral students as emerging scholars come to understand and enact their positionalities in research, especially in relation to data analysis, interpretation, and representation. This study expands notions of CSR to include a focus on research with African immigrants and strengthens possibilities for doctoral preparation in education that focuses on culture, race, and immigrant populations.

The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the extent to which a partnership orientation in conjoint behavioral consultation (CBC) may predict case outcomes and determine the relationship between a partnership orientation and implementation integrity of CBC. CBC is a problem-solving process by which families and teachers work collaboratively with a consultant to address students' academic, behavioral, and social needs. Twenty children, their parents and teachers, and consultants were involved in CBC services. Outcomes included parent and teacher ratings of acceptability, satisfaction, perceptions of effectiveness, and child performance across home and school settings. Partnership orientation scores and process integrity data were collected across interviews for each case. Results suggest that both parents and teachers consistently find CBC to be an acceptable, effective, and satisfactory form of service delivery. Findings reveal that consultants can conduct CBC interview objectives effectively within a partnership orientation. A partnership orientation in CBC was significant in predicting teachers' acceptability and satisfaction with the process; however, parents' acceptability and satisfaction with the CBC process was not predicted by a partnership orientation. (Contains 3 tables.)

This global survey of experts assessed the suitability of different health-related interventions for inclusion in school health services (SHSs) to inform development of the World Health Organization global guideline on SHSs. A review of 138 global World Health Organization publications identified 406 health service interventions for 5- to 19-year-old individuals. These were consolidated, pretested, and pilot-tested in a questionnaire as 86 promotion, prevention, care, or treatment interventions. A total of 1,293 experts were identified through purposive sampling of journal databases and professional networks. In July 2019, experts were invited to complete the questionnaire online in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, or Spanish. Respondents categorized each intervention as essential, highly suitable, suitable, or unsuitable in SHSs (everywhere or in certain geographic areas only). They could also suggest interventions. Interventions categorized most often as "Essential in SHSs everywhere" (70%–80%) are related to health promotion and health education. Clinical interventions categorized most often in this way (60%–68%) are related to immunization, screening, assessment, and general care. Interventions categorized most often as "Essential in SHSs in certain geographic areas only" (27%–49%) are related to immunization, mass drug administration, and health promotion. Interventions categorized most often as "Unsuitable in SHSs anywhere" (12%–14%) are related to screening of noncommunicable conditions. There were no important regional differences. Of 439 respondents from 81 countries, 188 suggested 378 additional interventions. Question order effect and/or purposive sampling biases may have influenced both quantitative and qualitative results for different types of intervention. Favorable responses to almost all interventions supported their World Health Organization guideline inclusion but provided little guidance for intervention prioritization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors are conducting a study of instructors teaching data structure and algorithm topics, with a focus on the use of diagrams and tracing. The results of this study are being used to inform the design of the Support Kit for Animation (SKA). This article describes a preliminary version of SKA, and possible usage scenarios. (Author/AEF)