Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009




SOCIAL CONTEXT
 OF EDUCATION

                 Edited by

       DAMIJAN Š...
Reviewer:                      Assoc Prof. Anna Kožuh, PhD
                Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009


 ...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
                                       CONTENTS



GIFTEDNESS AS A PEDAGOGICAL...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
11. Norman L. Butler, Barry S. Davidson, Ryszard

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES: ...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009



               Elena Bocharova
               Нorlivka State Pedagogical In...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
gi�ed personality, peculiarities of pedagogical process, which the...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
that people with a high level of intellectual faculties had to form
an elitist...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
gets from the nature only bents which education can develop.
The m...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
of development of children’s abilities and the task of teachers was
to educate...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
10% of clever pupils. It’s necessary to mention, that these clever...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
professionally prepared people as persons who have a potential
for great achie...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
    - Physical peculiarity.
      According to this, there are thr...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
a great influence, not only during your life, on social and spiritual
activity...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
     The problem of connection of intellectual and creative
abilit...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
last, from the very childhood these children have special abilities
which are ...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
numbers of gi�ed pupils to correspond with opportunities of
practi...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
      As it has been already mentioned gi�edness is basically
connected with g...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
organizational ones; the cognitive activity – choreographic, stage...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
various contribution of the leading components in the structure
of the clevern...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
the emotional and motivational involvements in the activity, the
e...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
     At last, there are some children who go beyond their age
standards that d...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon
    реком. / В. І. Барко, В. Г. Панюк, С. В. Лазаревський. - К., 2...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
19. Теплов Б. М. Проблемы индивидуальных различий / Борис
    Михайлович Тепло...
Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon




                          26
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009



             Richard Kahn
             University of North Dakota
         ...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
single-issue focus that over-privileges under-theorized states
o...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
for a critical literacy of nonhuman animals, the majority of the
socio-ecologi...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
of the primacy of one social antagonism over another, or one set...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
and harpoon; here, we must learn the ways in which speciesist
ideology is fold...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
(beyond their commitment to the development of the kind of
criti...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
environmental and human rights issues alongside its ongoing
focus upon the vio...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
education’s chronic resource problem. Fox discovered that with a...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
nonhuman animals are natural resources that can be managed to
produce maximum ...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
movement offers an inclusive standpoint for the emancipation of
...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
release of Gaard’s book The Nature of Home (University of Arizona
Press, 2008)...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
racism, one whose diet was colonized by brutal corporate agendas...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
School for Social Science and co-founder of the Institute for Critical
Animal ...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
or concerned citizenry. This ability to resist being standardize...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
constitute emancipatory “best practices.” Instead, it must foster
the kind of ...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
Andrzejewski, J., Baltodano, M. P., & Symcox, L. (Eds.) (2009). ...
Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009
Gray-Donald, J. & Selby, D. (Eds.) (2008). Green frontiers: Environmental
   e...
Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy...
McKenzie, M. (2005) The ‘post-post period’ and environmental
   ...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009

4,024 views
4,010 views

Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009

Published by: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska, fakulteta, 2009

Dr. Kritsonis Lectures at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England

In 2005, Dr. Kritsonis was an Invited Visiting Lecturer at the Oxford Round Table at Oriel College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. His lecture was entitled the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,024
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Social Context of Education, University of Ljubljana, 2009

  1. 1. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 SOCIAL CONTEXT OF EDUCATION Edited by DAMIJAN ŠTEFANC BOŻENA HARASIMOWICZ LJUBLJANA, 2009 3
  2. 2. Reviewer: Assoc Prof. Anna Kožuh, PhD Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 Prof. Vjačeslav Terkulov, PhD Edited by: Damijan Štefanc Bożena Harasimowicz © Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, 2009. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or othervise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Main entry under title: SOCIAL CONTEXT OF EDUCATION Published by: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts For the publisher: Valentin Bucik, Dean Issued by: Department of Education Includes index. 1. Educational-Research-Slovenia-Adresses, essays. 2. Education-Social Sciences-Methods-Slovenia-Adresses, essays. Damijan Štefanc, Bożena Harasimowicz. CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 37.01(082) SOCIAL context of education / edited by Damijan Štefanc, Božena Harasimowicz. - Ljubljana : Faculty of Arts, 2009 ISBN 978-961-237-337-5 1. Štefanc, Damijan 249000960 Printed by Mellow Technical Editor: Luka Novak Publikacija je brezplačna 4
  3. 3. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 CONTENTS GIFTEDNESS AS A PEDAGOGICAL PHENOMENON................................... 7 1. Elena Bocharova VISION OF THE DEMOCRATIC FUTURE OF THE NET .......................... 27 2. Richard Kahn THE LOCAL SOURCES OF AN IDEA OF HOMELAND ............................. 47 3. Zbigniew Pucek METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF CAUSALITY .................... 65 4. Alison Kington THEORY OF META-ANALYTIC STUDIES ..................................................... 79 5. Boris Kožuh ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH IN PEDAGOGICAL RESEARCH ............ 89 6. Jelena Maksimović STEPS TOWARDS TO INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN BiH ........................ 97 7. Nenad Suzić SUPPORTING PURPOSE-DRIVEN TEACHING 8. Jodi Bergland Holen, Bonni Gourneau, Woei Hung AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, USA A Teacher Education for the Future Project .......................................... 117 9. Teresa A. Hughes, Norman L. Butler, William A. Kritsonis, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION IN CANADA AND David Herrington POLAND-COMPARED: INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS ................ 135 TEACHER’S ACTIVITY IN THE DEVELOPING 10. Danuta Skulicz OF EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ............................................................................. 143 5
  4. 4. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 11. Norman L. Butler, Barry S. Davidson, Ryszard INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES: POLISH POST – SECONDARY Pachocinski, Kimberly G. Grif�ith, William A. Kritsonis VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS AND CANADIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES: A COMPARISON USING AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONCEPTUAL MODEL .................................................................................... 159 DIGITAL SUPPORTS FOR PERSONS WITH MULTIPLE DISABILITY 12. María del Carmen Malbrán AND COMPLEX COMMUNICATION NEEDS ............................................ 171 ACTION RESEARCH IN THE INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM ...................... 179 13. Natasha Angeloska-Galevska, Zora Jacova Index ................................................................................................................... 185 6
  5. 5. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 Elena Bocharova Нorlivka State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages UKRAINE GIFTEDNESS AS A PEDAGOGICAL PHENOMENON Under the conditions of modern social cultural situation, which is characterized by rapid changes in different spheres of the life of society and constant introduction of new information technology, the problem of education of intellectually and creatively talented personality, capable of non-standard thinking, ready for refusing from templates and usual methods of activity in searching something new and creative shouldn’t be neglected. School should fulfill the social order for pupils’ all-round developed personality, the future highly qualified specialist in a definite sphere of creative life. The future of Ukraine depends on intellectual and spiritual power, creative potential of the growing generation, its desire of acquiring the new knowledge, making new technological innovations, creative thinking and taking constructive decisions. It is confirmed on a government level with the Ukrainian President’s introduction of the Program “The Gi�ed Child” and the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers “About confirming Government goal-directed program of working with the gi�ed youth during 2007-2010 years”. That is why organizing the normal conditions for developing the gi�ed pupils and students is one of the most actual problems in the modern psycho-pedagogical science. So, the actuality of the problem is based on the necessity of system research and generalizing the conception of gi�edness and its kinds, describing the effective methods of diagnostics for a 7
  6. 6. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon gi�ed personality, peculiarities of pedagogical process, which the gi�ed children are involved in and forms of realizing the social and pedagogical support for the gi�ed youth. During the century in psycho-pedagogical science gi�edness has being discussed in educational practice, reveal the gi�ed individuals, organize their learning according to special educational plans and programs. But the scientists have not come to any univalent conclusion about what the gi�edness is, which method is be�er for defining it, which instruments should be used for revealing a gi�ed pupil. From the point of view of D. Bogoyavlenska, the difficulty and specificity with gi�ed children demand involving into this problem different specialists. They are: teachers, psychologists, sociologists, cultural and sport figures, managers from different spheres of education. The work with gi�ed children cannot base only on empiric experience. It should have scientific and methodological fields, which permit to decide such important questions as defining, teaching and developing a gi�ed child [14]. From the psychological point of view the gi�edness is a difficult object, in which cognitive, psycho-physiological emotional, motivating and willing persons’ spheres are crossing. The difficulty of the phenomenon is caused by the specificity of work with talented children. In this process pedagogical and psychological difficulties constantly appear and they are connected and they are connected with different kinds of gi�edness, a great amount of theoretical approaches and methods which define it, lack of specialists, who are professionally ready for work with different categories of gi�ed children in educational establishments of different types [16]. The problem of gi�edness is considered to be psychological. In addition there is no doubt that the notions “gi�edness”, “genius”, “talent” belong only to psychological apparatus. For a long time Psychology was developing in the network of philosophy, thanks to which most of the categorical notions were formed as philosophical, and only much later they became the object of investigation of psychologists. That’s why we will begin with the examination of the problem of gi�edness from the point of view of Philosophy. As far back as the times of Antiquity great hopes were set on the people with prominent intellectual faculties, a special role in the society was assigned to them. In particular, Plato believed 8
  7. 7. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 that people with a high level of intellectual faculties had to form an elitist caste and to occupy the top of the social pyramid in the ideal republic. Plato also thought that a person’s intellectual faculties did not change with the lapse of time and that is why the humanity did not have any opportunity to influence their level [21, p. 27]. Long before Anno Domini some individuals appraised to be cleverer than the others. In Ancient Egypt in order to begin studying the art of a priest one had to stand the defined system of the tests. At the beginning the applicant gave an interview during which his biography, the level of experience and also his appearance, the ability to hold a conversation were found out. Then came the rest of his ability to work, listen to and keep silent, ordeal by fire, water, fear and so on. It is recollected that Pythagoras, a famous scientist of antiquity, stood the system of the tests successfully and when he returned to Greece he found there a school. One could enter it only a�er standing a number of different tests which were like those ones which he had stood himself in due time. The sources indicate that Pythagoras appreciated the role of intellectual faculties and he asserted that “it is impossible to turn Mercury out of every tree”. That is why he a�ached a great importance to the diagnostics of these faculties. Quintilian’s pedagogical theory is based on the learning of the positive nature of a person. He believed that almost all the children had abilities for learning and that is why a teacher had to know and take into account in his work the individual peculiarities and abilities of each child. He suggested beginning to learn as soon as possible. According to Quintilian, every person is gi�ed by the nature in different ways. The thinker emphasized the great importance of education for forming gi�edness, he thought that collective education did more good than the private one. He also mentioned the great importance of school friendship [7, p. 158]. Hippocrates was the first to express the opinion about the subordination of the human way of existence to the universal law with endless variety of individual variations. Taking into consideration the canons of ancient Greek philosophy (about four origins) he developed the teaching about four types of temperament, which explained individual differences between people [17, p. 86]. Aristotle developed the theory of education of “the citizens who were born by free parents”. From his point of view, a person 9
  8. 8. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon gets from the nature only bents which education can develop. The mind is the God’s part of the human existence; people are born with “clear mind” which is being filled by thoughts during gaining the life experience. According to Aristotle, education must ensure harmonious combination of physical, moral and mental development of a person. In the sphere of mental education he stood up for bread scholarship which is not compatible with specialization in one of the kinds of activity which from Aristotle’s point of view is unworthy of the people who were born by free parents [7, p. 29]. In psychological investigations the problem of gi�edness takes a long period of time. O. Klimchenko believes that it is appropriate to divide it into two periods: before-scholastic and a�er-scholastic. While analyzing before-scholastic period the author defines that in philosophy of antiquity the existence of some internal preconditions was not prohibited, however a person’s perfection to the level of wisdom, gi�edness was considered to be the product of will and freedom of any particular person. Thus, almost in all the philosophical views of this period the distinct differentiation of the notions of genius, gi�edness, talent is absent, and related notions were defined by individual views of thinkers [11, p. 25]. The situation changed in scholastic period. The main difference from antique period was that scholastics tried to prove the innateness of all the person’s qualities, the fact that all these qualities were given to people by God. A high level of the development of abilities is gi�edness, or God-given talent. During a�er-scholastic period (Schopenhauer, Carlyle, Hirsch, Jolly, Lafi�e, Reynard and others) differentiations of the notions of gi�edness, genius and talent appeared. Thus, the problem of origin of the highest human abilities – gi�edness, genius, talent – in philosophy became a basis for systematic and scientific study of this phenomenon in psychology and helped the psychologists to develop the theory of gi�edness. Renaissance The epoch of Renaissance is the epoch of passion for the culture, knowledge art and the wide demand for painting. A famous Polish pedagogue and writer of political essays Andrew Frich Modrzewsky wrote about school orientation which consisted in the selection of pupils to schools according to their abilities. He emphasized that the task of parents was the support 10
  9. 9. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 of development of children’s abilities and the task of teachers was to educate the children in the way so that they could bring joy and pleasure to their relatives. XVII Century The conception of the development of children’s abilities thought appropriate encouragement of pupils to intellectual activity in the process of teaching appeared. (R. Descartes) XVIII Century Zh.-Zh. Rousseau in his conception of “free education” stated that abilities and other features of gi�edness had to develop without any interference of teachers, and education had to come only to allocation of the possibilities of the free choice. Rousseau thought that the main factors of education were the nature, the people and the objects of surrounding world. XIX Century Y. Pestalozzi propagandized the elemental development of a person according to his character and inclinations. Education and teaching, according to Pestalozzi, had to correspond to the child’s nature and the instincts which were put in it. A German philosopher, pedagogue Johann Fredrick Herbart (1778-1841) stated: “The variety of human mental faculties makes the biggest problems in school education. Not taking this fact into account is a fundamental mistake of any legislation which concerns education” [23, p. 19]. In the XIX century the emphasis was laid, essentially, on intelligent development of pupils, but all the pupils were taken as homogenous group, without taking in account their individual peculiarities. At the beginning of the XX century, due to Swedish teacher’s work “Ellen Key the Century of the Child (1990)”, the a�itude to a pupil and importance of the school education was changed. Reorganization of the teaching content, differentiation of programs and methods of teaching has been going on over a period of the whole century [23, p. 19]. In 1916 German psychologist William Stern (1871-1938) published the work “The growth of talents” in which he ascertained, that due to abilities a child develops rapidly over a program of acess and enriching course in a primary school, which obliged to include not only 2% of talented children, but another 11
  10. 10. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon 10% of clever pupils. It’s necessary to mention, that these clever statements were formed more than 90 years ago! [23, p. 20]. The investigation of the problem of human abilities was started in the XX century and promoted the accumulation of the information data about the nature of gi�edness. The increasing of this problem was promoted by the interest of famous authors and thinkers. The works which were appeared in the second half of the XIX century concerned to explications of the existence of creative process. In the Ukrainian publication of “The Pedagogical Dictionary” it was defined that “gi�edness is the individual potential peculiarity of inclinations of a person, owing to which one can achieve success in a certain branch of activity”. The necessary natural inclinations for the development of the gi�edness do not define it themselves. Gi�edness is developing in a process of mastering by an individual cultural and other wealth of the humanity, individual’s creative activity. Gi�edness can be technical, musical, poetical and artistic. The high level of gi�edness is called talent. The general gi�edness is an ability of people to different branches of activities [7, 236]. In the psychological encyclopedia of O. M. Stepanova gi�edness is a level of the development of general abilities which defines the range of intellectual abilities of a person and provides the achievement of considerable success in the accomplishment of different kinds of activity. Gi�edness is a basis for the formation of a great number of abilities and the result of the development of special abilities [17, p. 228]. The main function of gi�edness according to V. Molyako is a maximum adaptation to the surroundings, finding decisions in all kinds of situations, when unpredictable problems which need creative approach appear. The researcher thinks that a person must get specific potential of abilities (ancestral factors and earned experience). That’s why gi�edness cannot be supposed as unique or rare phenomenon [13]. The literature analysis of scientific sources shows that the concept of cleverness has being used in different meanings till now. Thus, in 1792 in the official report of the state department of the USC (the Congress) the following definition of gi�edness, which has being used by American specialists was proposed by now: gi�ed and talented are those pupils, who are exposed by 12
  11. 11. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 professionally prepared people as persons who have a potential for great achievements under outstanding abilities [15, p. 15]. B. Teplov defined gi�edness as the peculiar consolidation of abilities. The success of realization of an activity depends on it. He thinks that “general gi�edness can be defined in a general meaning as the gi�edness for the wide range of activities” [19, p. 15]. American psychologist Rensulli J. S. emphasizes that gi�edness is a number of interacting components and that it is impossible to indentify it by only one description. According to it he suggested the scales of estimation of the peculiarity of the gi�ed children’s behavior in the educational, motivational and creative and leadership sphere. One of the most holistic concepts of the gi�edness in the world of psychology is the J. Renzull’s theory about three rings. The concepts describe the gi�edness as the interaction of three groups of person’s qualities. The models contain three elements: mental ability, which surpasses the middle level, insistence (the motivation is oriented on the task) and creativity [24]. In this theoretical model the knowledge on the basis of practice and favorable society is also taken into account. The author noted that due to his concept the number of gi�ed children might be rather higher than according to IQ-tests identifying the achievements. He does not connect the term “gi�edness” only to extremely high marks in every sphere. His model is democratic. This makes it possible to refer the children who showed high results even in one parameter to the category of gi�ed. At the beginning of the XX century American psychologist Ch. Spearmen assumed that gi�edness is based on the special “mental energy” which is constant for certain individual and considerably distinguishes one person from another. In A. Matushkin’s concept the psychological structure of gi�edness coincides with structural elements, which characterize the creativity and creative development of a person. The gi�edness is regarded as general ground of creativity in any profession, science or arts [12]. Researchers distinguish a great number of indications of gi�ed children. On the basis of principle of systematization they may be united in three groups: - Leading cognitive development; - Psychosocial sensibility; 13
  12. 12. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon - Physical peculiarity. According to this, there are three tasks for the pedagogical work: to promote person’s development, to draw the individual achievements of the child to the maximum level as soon as possible, to promote social progress using the resources of gi�edness. In foreign psychological researches there is a great number of “lists of abilities of creative personality”. We will dwell on two of them. The first belongs to E. Torrans and L. Holl. The peculiarities of genius personalities are: 1)”the possibility of working miracles. Miracles mean the ac- tions which go out of bounds of usual, natural phenom- enon, but do not contradict the laws of nature” 2) The high level of intrusion into needs and wills of people; 3) The aureole of peculiarity that possesses the ability to give to the people, he communicates with, the belief in their power; 4) The ability of solving conflicts, especially in that situation when they do not have any logical solution; 5) The presence of feeling of future, vivid imagination that is connected with reach fantasy and intuition; 6) The a�itude to the transcendental meditation. The basic aim of the meditation is to reach the condition of self- actualization and perfectness [8, p. 28]. The American psychologist K. Taylor points out such features of a gi�ed personality as: the desire for being always the first; the independence; the tendency to a risk; activity; curiosity – the insistence in searching, dissatisfaction with existing methods, traditions that provokes dissatisfaction with society; unconventional thinking; the reclines to make a decision of gi�ed communication; the talent of prevision [8, p. 28]. Summing it up, it is possible to say that particularities of a gi�ed person are: the versatile knowledge and in-depth study of searching process of objects which give him an opportunity to learn the inherent laws and to forecast their further development; the original way of thinking and creating the ability of enriching the science and art with new fundamental ideas and discoveries which are directed to creating new sciences and spheres of knowledge, new theories, paradigms, directions or styles in art that finally may cause a revolutionary renewal in culture of people or a new interpretation of known; the independence of thinking is 14
  13. 13. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 a great influence, not only during your life, on social and spiritual activity of society; insistence in achieving aims [8, pp. 30-31]. Due to the widespread researches of cognitive abilities it is possible to trace the way of forming the term “gi�edness”, for example, in mental gi�edness. The investigation of the problem of human abilities was stated in the XX century and facilitated accumulation of information about the nature of gi�s. The interest of popular creators and thinkers promoted growth of this problem. The works, that appeared in the second half of XIX century concerned the explication of the existence of the creating process. Their results se�led that people are quantitatively differ from each other according to their mental abilities. In course time they came to resume that individualities differ from each other according to the mental abilities not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Qualitative differences are caused be presence of mental ability in structure except general mental components, factors which are responsible for mental abilities. The time has proved this theory as now they distinguish two types of gi�edness: special and general. But the concepts of that time form not intellect but its outside display, when the intellect is unlimited in its outside displays. In psychological sciences there is an opinion that mental development is determined by anatomical and psychological particularities of neurotic relations and processes and also by some psychological person qualities, his volitional, emotional and motivational spheres. Scientists mentioned that the links between the separate facts and phenomena which are known from the previous practice and the speed of processes that are responsible for exchange of information are marked on the efficiency of the mental activity. L. Vygotsky indicted, that the idea is being formed in the sphere of needs and interests. When solving one or another problem, the thinking of a human thinking time a�er time distracts from the basic activities and processes information, produces ideas which are not connected with the content of a problem which is being solved. O�en the idea of solving is lost. Thus, the ability of concentrating on the problem is necessary for making your brain work. It is an important component in the structure of intellect [5, p. 24]. Sorting out an individual tendency of learning some development of intellect, cognitive and relative in particular, led to the consideration of creative abilities. 15
  14. 14. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon The problem of connection of intellectual and creative abilities is not new. The highest expansion achieved the result of Terman’s experiment who, having measured intellectual abilities of 1500 children, noted the results of their creative activity, while being adults. He came into conclusion, that there is a close relation between person’s intellectual and creative abilities of a person and as the argument, he came up with the fact, that pupils who have achievements in two academic branches show much more creative hobbies [1, p. 15]. Veil and Martinson include to the main characteristics of intellectual children’s abilities an early speech, usage of different words, early learning of counting and arithmetical action over numbers and reading, curiosity, tenacious memory, quick perception, rich imagination [2, p. 77]. Those children make up sentences with complicated syntactical structures. It is typical for them to classify information and experience. Barco, Panuc, Lasarevsky, Vasilchenko, Guilbuh mention that very o�en gi�ed persons show an excessive a�ention and wide vocabulary. In young ages they are capable of intuitive brain leaps during thinking process. The next feature of intellectually gi�ed children is persistence in achieving their aims and ability to concentrate themselves in one kind of activity. Those children possess the ability to get connections and relations between the objects and phenomenon. In their characters the desire to do everything by their own is showed brightly. They express mostly resourceful various propositions towards a concrete situation. They can look at the same problem from another side. Intellectually gi�ed children crave for completeness, order and precision, they have a high energetic level which give them an opportunity to solve many problems at the same time. They are fond of making models and systems. They also pay a�ention to the ability of asking questions. The persons mentioned above make up new words and give definitions to conceptions which come to their mind, the main point of phenomenon, process, quality or fact which are under examination. They give their preference to intellectual games; most of them have inclination to mathematics. The independent thinking is typical for these children which is shown both in creative for founding the self-made solving a problem and in learning without an excessive directions of teachers and parents. They give their preference rather to difficulties than to easy ways. They are mainly erudite. At 16
  15. 15. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 last, from the very childhood these children have special abilities which are concerned to one or several kinds of abilities. As for the physical development of intellectually gi�ed children, some scientists say, that they begin to walk earlier, have tall stature, coordinative movements; they are healthy and a�ractive, though these indications are not typical for every person. Many scientists stated that every intellectually gi�ed child, except his general indications, inherent to the majority of these types of persons, differ from others by his uniqueness that complicates the process of his detection. Altogether the independent features of these persons can be inherent to ordinary pupils. It leads to the mistaken identity. That is why, in order to get a reliable prediction of intellectual development of the children, they use quantitative values of their intellectual abilities that is to the testing diagnostics of the intellect. First tests of intellectual abilities appeared at the beginning of XX century in connection with the pragmatic program of showing out those pupils who lag behind their class-mates and therefore they are not able to learn material, except by educational programs. Later they made a test to measure intellectual abilities of a wide range of pupils in order to range pupils on the basis of the development of intellectual activities, dividing them into groups and organizing their differentiated education. These tests are widely known. In fact, the usage of them gives the basic reason to control not only the level of development, but also some of manifestations and intellectual skills, that’s why it will be correct to call them as the tests of intellectual skills. Thus, intricacy of it is that you should give the answer to the question: what meaning of the level of intellectual skills of some pupils alienates the intellectually gi�ed children from usual pupils. Associating the higher intellectual skills with good inclinations of the person that nature gives him. Such kind of pupils is used to be called the gi�ed pupils. In such way we get to know about term “gi�edness”, but with this one we have new problems of scientific and practical character. By this moment we don’t know unique and exhaustive term of “gi�edness”. As though manifestation of gi�ed pupils is not end of itself, but it is a component of complex action for organization of differentiated studies, development of skills, social rehabilitation, so in this situation the criteria of gi�edness should be special for 17
  16. 16. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon numbers of gi�ed pupils to correspond with opportunities of practical work with supporting and helping. Thus, in reviewed artistic literature we have found a few terms of gi�edness. The gi�edness is reviewed as the most special combination of skills which predetermines the possibilities of a person, the level and the originality of the activity of a person. But from another hand the gi�edness is an intellectual capability, undivided individual characteristics of perceptional opportunities and skills for studies. Besides, the gi�edness is the totality of skills, characteristics of extent of expressing and originality of natural reasons for skills. Sometimes the gi�edness has some associations with availabilities of internal conditions for famous achievement in an activity. As you know, the high level of development of personal skills is also called the gi�edness. This item also gives some opportunities to do the best in the specific activity. The gi�edness is a talent in some kind of activity and unique creative abilities; the high level of intellectual and academic abilities. The term of “gi�edness” means that pupils have some unusual abilities to study at its own discretion and power of abstract and independent thought. The gi�edness is not a discrete, but continuous formation, it’s impossible to speak about presence or absence of gi�edness because it is inherent for everyone but in different extend. It is now thought that the extend of gi�edness are the results of human’s work and due to it one creates something new or open a great deal of opportunities for achievements in something in the easiest way without charges of time and energy. Thus, the basis of gi�edness is a special combination of inclinations that is a guarantee of high intellectual abilities and at last ends with great achievements in perceptional activity. If we compare the definition of the term “talent”, which is given in “The pedagogical vocabulary”: “Talent is a combination of different levels of genetic gi�edness and work” [7, p. 326], we can see that the boundaries are uncertain. Moreover, such a feature of talent as preference of a particular kind of activity is almost the same as the terms of different kinds of gi�edness. We agree with Shepotko V. P. and Voloschuk I. S. who believes that general and special gi�edness is the basis for the human talents. However, the life success of a person is defined not only by the level of the development of gi�edness if teachers defined his talent correctly [21, p. 42]. 18
  17. 17. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 As it has been already mentioned gi�edness is basically connected with general abilities of a person and his achievements in studies. Earlier the gi�edness was connected with general abilities of a person. Then it became clear that high intellectual possibilities are based on special personal abilities. The new approach includes either special abilities or the high general intellectual development [6, p. 115] For a long time gi�edness has been associated just with the intellectual abilities of a person. Then besides the intellectual ones academic, art, social, physical and other kinds of gi�edness are used We are sure that it is correct to use the term of general gi�edness and connect the specific combination of abilities which define intellectual, mental and physical spheres of a person with it. The general gi�edness is realized in one of the kinds of special gi�edness: scientific, technical, organizational, art, physical. Each of them is realized in a practical activity in the form of this or that talent. Having worked over the scientific-pedagogical literature we agreed to the points stated by Grabovsky who classifies the gi�edness in the most complete and reasonable way. He defines several criteria for the differentiation of the kinds of gi�edness with qualitative and quantitative aspects. The analysis of qualitative characteristics of gi�edness is going to define its specific types in connection with the specification of the psychological abilities of a person and peculiarities of their realization in these or those kinds of activity. The analysis of quantitative characteristics allows describing the level of realization of psychological abilities of a person. There are several criteria of gi�edness: 1. the kind of activity of psychological sphere which supports it; 2. the level of development of gi�edness; 3. the form of its realization; 4. the level of realization in different kinds of activity; 5. the peculiarities of age. Following the first criterion of the classification of types of gi�edness is realized according to five kinds of activity which reflect three psychological spheres and the level of different stages of psychological organization. Practical, theoretical, esthetical, communicative, mental are the main kinds of activity. The psychological spheres are subdivided into intellectual, emotional and volitional [19, p. 510]. The following kinds of gi�edness can be divided into: the practical activity – the gi�edness in trades, sport and 19
  18. 18. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon organizational ones; the cognitive activity – choreographic, stage, literary, art, musical ones; the communicative activity – leading and a�ractive ones. In the mental activity we define the gi�edness in creation new mental values, the service to people. According to such an approach the gi�edness is shown as integral realization of different abilities for the concrete activity. The same kind of gi�edness may have its unique character, as some its components that different people have may be realized differently. It is necessary to organize the conditions for the forming of the internal motivation of the activity, straightness of the person and the system of the values which make the basis of the stature of the spiritual personality. According to the criterion “the level of the forming of the gi�edness” it can be differentiated as the actual and potential gi�edness. The first is the psychological characteristic of the child with the researched indices of the psychological development, which reveal themselves and on a higher level of the execution of the activity in the concrete subject-branch by comparison with the age and social standard. It goes without saying, that in this case not only learning activity is mentioned but also the wide rank of the various types of activity. The special category of the mentally gi�ed people consists of the talented children who reach the results which meet requirements of the objective novelty and social significance. As a rule, the concrete product of the activity of a talented child is estimated by the expert as one which corresponds to the criteria of the creation. The potential gi�edness is a psychological characteristics of the child which has only certain psychological possibilities for the high achievement in the certain type of activity, but he can’t realize them at the moment because of his functional insufficiency. The maturity of this potential can be delayed because of the unsuitable reasons (the hard family circumstances, insufficient motivation, the low of the self-regulation, if the receives of the abilities of people let compensate the absence or not enough expressed components, necessary for the successful realization of the activity. The special striking gi�edness or talent say about the presence of the high gi�edness and a great number of the components for the realization of activity and also about the intensity of the integration process together with the personal sphere. The 20
  19. 19. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 various contribution of the leading components in the structure of the cleverness can give a paradox picture when the effective learning of the activity, intelligence and creation do not coincide with the expression, The facts of this difference in the expression of the gi�edness do not say in one meaning for the benefit of the distinguishing its types (academic, mental, creative). The activity is always realized by the person. The aims and motives influence on the level of the quality of the realization. If a pupil prepares his home task just for not being shouted because of bad marks or not to lose the prestige of the rank of a good pupil then the activity is done rather doubtful and its result even in the best realization does not surpass the normal requirements [18, p. 92]. The gi�edness forces the involvement in the subject, activity that the child does with love, he constantly makes be�er, realizing new thoughts, born in the process of working. As a result a new product is rather higher than the first idea that is why it is impossible to say about “development of the activity”. If the last one is realized with the initiative of the child, this is the creativity [4, p. 151]. The theoretical approach has a very important result, researching the development of gi�edness, it is impossible to limit the work only by the construction, the program of the absence of the necessary environment. The expression of the potential gi�edness requires the high prognoses of the diagnostic methods which are used because the question is about the system of the abilities which has not been formed yet, about the future development of which could be considered only on the basis of separate features. The integration of the abilities, which are necessary for the high achievements is absent yet. The potential gi�edness is showed according to the suitable conditions, which provide for certain developing influence on the outgoing psychological abilities of the child [9, p. 17] According to the criterion “the form of manifestation” there are evident and hidden gi�edness. According to the criterion “the width of manifestation in various types of activity” the general and special gi�edness can be distinguished. General gi�edness is shown with a regarding to the various kinds of activities and sticks out as the basis of its productivity. The general gi�edness defines the level of the understanding of what is happening, the depth of 21
  20. 20. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon the emotional and motivational involvements in the activity, the effectiveness of the aim-formulating and self-regulation. The special gi�edness reveals itself in the concrete types of activity (music, arts, sports etc). The special gi�edness influences the specialization of general psychological resources of a person, increasing its uniqueness of the gi�ed child. According to the criterion of the age development, it is possible to distinguish the early and the late gi�edness. The temp of the psychological development of the child and also those age stages on which the gi�edness is brightly defined are the decisive markers here. It is necessary to take into consideration the fact that the rapid psychological development, the early defining of the gi�edness of a child do not always determine the high achievements further. At the same time the lack of them at the childhood does not mean any negative conclusion concerning the prospects of the further psychological development of a person. The example of the gi�edness is the children called “infants”. There is some dependence between the age at which the gi�edness is defined and the sphere of activity. The earliest gi�edness is determined in arts, especially in music, a bit later in the sphere of fine arts. In the science the achievements of important results in the form of famous explores, creation of new spheres and methods of investigation take place later than in arts. Besides, it is connected with the necessity of acquisition of deep and wide knowledge without which the scientific discovers are impossible. As a rule, the talent for mathematics is determined earlier than those. It was already mentioned above that differences in gi�edness may be connected both with the level of manifestation of its features and with the control of the level of the child’s achievements. The defining on this basis notwithstanding the conditional character is being realized with the help of comparing different markers with the average age standard. The uniqueness is known to counterbalance with mediocrity. So, the individual development influences greatly the peculiarities of the gi�edness. Thus, the abilities of some children exceed to some extent the average level of abilities of their coevals. Their gi�edness is not always visible. But they have the basic definite features and must be evaluated by teachers and school psychologists. Others show rather striking intellectual, artistic, communicative or other kinds of inclinations. As a rule, their gi�edness is evident for the people surrounding them. 22
  21. 21. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 At last, there are some children who go beyond their age standards that does not allow to speak about their unique and special gi�edness. The success of their activity may be extremely high. At the same time they o�en form “a risk group” as they have serious problems which require a special a�ention and appropriate support from teachers and psychologists. It is very important to take into consideration the level of the defining of gi�edness as there are certain principles of its demonstration and dynamics depending on its level [10, p.132]. Summing it up we can sort out the particularities of the gi�ed child. They are: uniqueness of knowledge and the depth of penetration in exploring processes or objects that give him an opportunity to investigate interior regularities and to anticipate their further development; originality of thinking and creativity, the ability of enriching science and art by new fundamental ideas and discoveries which lead to the creation of new science and branches of knowledge, new theories, paradigms, tendencies or styles in arts that finally can lead to the revolutionary renewal in the culture of people or the new interpretation of the old known; independence and liberty of thinking: a great influence (not only in life) the social and spiritual life of society; persistence in achieving targets [8, pp. 30-31]. Generalizing everything which was mentioned above a very rapid development of the intellect concerning the child’s age is considered to be a sign of gi�edness. This development is connected with the maximum combination of anatomy- psychological peculiarities which were received at one’s birth and which define mental faculties, character of moral and will qualities and psycho energy. Talent shows that the creative level of development of abilities which are specific for every kind of human activity is characteristic for a child. Thus, every individual case of a child’s gi�edness may be evaluated from the point of view of all the criteria of the classification of its kinds which are enumerated above. Thereby, gi�edness is defined as a multifarious phenomenon according to its character. For a practitioner it is a possibility and also a necessity of a more concrete view on the originality of talent of a particular person. References 1. Барко В. І. Психолого-педагогічна діагностика творчого потенціалу учня в навчально-виховному процесі: метод. 23
  22. 22. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon реком. / В. І. Барко, В. Г. Панюк, С. В. Лазаревський. - К., 2000. - 30 с. 2. Виговський О. Вольові якості талановитої особистості. Парадокси психологічного дослідження / О. Виговський // Директор школи, ліцею, гімназії. — 2002. — No 3. — С. 76-79. 3. Гальтон Ф. Наследственность таланта / Фрэнсис Гальтон. - М., 1996. - 272 с. 4. Гильбух Ю. З. Внимание: одаренные дети / Юрий Зиновьевич Гильбух. - М.: Знание, 1991. - 198 с. 5. Гильбух Ю. З. Умственно одаренный ребенок: психология, диагностика, педагогика / Юрий Зиновьевич Гильбух. - К., 1992. - 83 с. 6. Глассер У.: Школа без неудачников / У. Глассер; общ. ред. В. Я. Пилиповского. - М.: Прогресс, 1991. - 184 с. 7. Гончаренко С. У. Український педагогічний словник / Семен Устимович Гончаренко. - К.: Либідь, 1997. - С. 326. 8. Гончаренко Н. С. Гений в искусстве и науке. – М: Искусство, 1991. – 432 с. 9. Грабовский А. И. К вопросу о классификации видов детской одаренности / А. И. Грабовский // Педагогика. - 2003. - No 8. - С. 13-18. 10. Карпенко Н. В. Діагностика психічного розвитку дитини в роботі педагога (вчителя, вихователя): навч. посіб. / Н. В. Карпенко. - К.: Каравела, 2008. - С. 130-134. 11. Клименченко О.Н. Проблема одаренности, гениальности, таланта в философии / О.Н. Климченко // Одаренный ребенок.- No1. - 2003.- С. 25. 12. Матюшкин А. М. Одаренность и творчество / А. М. Матюшкин // Учителю об одаренных детях / под. ред. В. П. Лебедевой, В. И. Панова. - М., 1997. - 148 с. 13. Моляко В. О. Проблеми психологи творчества и разработка похода к изучению одаренности / В.О. Моляко // Вопросы психологи. – 1994. - No 5. – С. 86-95. 14. Одаренность: Рабочая концепция / Под ред. Д. Б. Богоявленской. - М., 2002.-192 с. 15. Одаренные дети / Под ред. Г.В. Бурменской и В.М.Слуцкого.- М.: Прогресс, 1991.- С. 15. 16. Панов В. И. Теоретические и практические аспекты выявления, обучения и развития детей с признаками одаренности / В.И. Панов // Одаренность: рабочая концепция. Матер. 1 Межд. конф. – М., 2002.- С.110. 17. Психологічна енциклопедія / Автор-упорядник О. М. Степанов. – К.: «Академвидав», 2006. – 424 с. 18. Савенков А. И. Диагностика детской одаренности как педагогическая проблема / Александр Ильич Савенков // Педагогика. - 2000. - No 10. - С. 87-94. 24
  23. 23. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 19. Теплов Б. М. Проблемы индивидуальных различий / Борис Михайлович Теплов. - М., 1961. — С. 9-535. 20. Теплов Б. М. Способности и одаренность // Избр. труды. Т. 1.- М., 1985.- С. 14-15. 21. Шепотько В. П. Організація навчання обдарованих і талановитих школярів / В. П. Шепотько, І. С. Волощук // Рідна школа. - 2006. - No 9. - С. 27-54. 22. Юркевич В. С. Одаренный ребенок: иллюзии и реальность / Виктория Соломоновна Юркевич. - М., 1996. - 215 с. 23. Mónks F.: Zdolności a twórczość // Teoria i praktyka edukacji uczniów zdolnych / red. Wiesława Limont. – Kraków: Oficyna Wydaw. Impuls, 2004, s. 19-31, Менкс, С. 20. 24. Rensulli J. S. The Three ring conception of gi�edness. A developmental model for creative productivity // Sternberg R.L., Cambr. Univ. Press, 1986. - P. 303-326. 25
  24. 24. Elena Bocharova: Giftedness as a Pedagogical Phenomenon 26
  25. 25. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 Richard Kahn University of North Dakota USA THEORIZING A NEW PARADIGM OF ECOPEDAGOGY THROUGH TEACHERS’ EMANCIPATORY PRACTICES While environmental education o�en stresses a variety of physical, affective, imaginative and moral methods of learning from and about the environment, it is hardly a controversial statement to say that environmental education is additionally a way of making a form of critical inquiry into the world. Minimally, there is the expectation that students need to inquire into the workings of nature and pose questions about the nonhuman order that can in turn be experienced and evaluated in order to generate knowledge that will serve the be�erment of civic society. Environmental literacy so defined reaches back to the field’s beginnings, as in the formulation given by Stapp (1969). The U.S. Office of Environmental Education, created under the George W. Bush administration, also now promotes a related form of critical environmental literacy.1 Considering that this is a political administration that has been deemed the most environmentally unsound in history (Pope & Rauber, 2004), and which has routinely moved to block scientific findings that may support sustainability as well as overturn or ignore important environmental regulations on corporations and the military (Kellner, 2005), current State-endorsed critical environmental literacy frameworks must therefore be judged as suspect (at least in the United States). Alternatively, well meaning reformist programs of outdoor education, like those promoted by the No Child Le� Inside Coalition and writers such as Richard Louv, tend themselves to reduce environmental education to a 27
  26. 26. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... single-issue focus that over-privileges under-theorized states of nature and wilderness. In this way, environmental educators can adopt problematical epistemologies and work ideologically against the aims of emancipatory multicultural movements and anti-oppressive education, as a reified form of environmental education likewise becomes curricularly tethered to the natural (and not the social) sciences (Kahn & Nocella, Forthcoming). Increasingly then it is becoming clear that if contemporary environmental educational literacy practices are not themselves made the object of critical inquiry, they are at least as liable to work on behalf of a social hegemony involved in the domination of nature as they are to work against it. In other words, environmental education—as with the world in which it a�empts to work—now stands in a moment of crisis, a concept that implies the need for our informed collective judgment and diagnostic deliberation. As Capra (1984) has remarked, such crisis implies both measures of danger and opportunity hanging in the balance. But, crucially for this paper, it is also “a moment of decisive intervention…of thorough-going transformation…[and] of rupture” (Hay, 1999, 323). Despite environmental education’s potential limitations as a critical field of study, significant theoretical inroads have been made over the last 10 to 15 years that have sought to intervene and reconstruct it as an advocacy pedagogy capable of transformatively engaging with the socio-political and cultural contexts of environmental problems. It is thus not altogether uncommon now to hear critical environmental educational theorists speak of the need to either develop pedagogical methods that can work both for ecological sustainability and social justice or mount critique of environmental education from an oppositional variety of racial, class, gender, queer, and non-ableist standpoints. Institutionally, this has translated into the recent emergence of education for sustainable development as environmental education’s heir (Gonzalez-Gaudiano, 2005) along with a�empts to blend forms of environmental education with work hailing from the tradition of critical pedagogy (for examples, see McKenzie, 2005; Gruenewald, 2003; Gruenewald & Smith, 2007; Fawce�, Bell & Russell, 2002; Bell & Russell, 2000; Cole, 2007; McLaren & Houston, 2005; O’Sullivan, 2001; Kahn, 2008a; 2008b; 2006; 2002; Andrzejewski, 2003; Gado�i, 2008).2 While some of this work, like that of McKenzie, Russell, Fawce�, and Andrzejewski has been concerned with the need 28
  27. 27. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 for a critical literacy of nonhuman animals, the majority of the socio-ecological turn in environmental education has either ignored nonhuman animal advocacy issues or has worked only ambiguously on nonhuman animals’ behalf through an a�empt to teach non-anthropocentric values. Though deconstructions of anthropocentrism are no doubt useful towards reconstructing educational frameworks, they have however been deployed for different and sometimes contradictory ends by a variety of groups. Hence, a curriculum of deep ecology might critique anthropocentrism in order to establish norms of greater equality between species and to challenge human identities through an a�empt to foster biocentric or ecocentric literacies of planetarity. This could work well with outdoor education and other wilderness-oriented pedagogies. Animal welfarist educators, by turn, might promote reformed visions of humanity as a good steward for life on earth and thereby uphold human rights to use nonhuman animals within an ethics that is less imperialist and more paternalistically familial. The curricular model here could question painful or needless dissection exercises in science education or promote the value of using classroom pets to teach character traits of responsibility and non-violence. Yet, neither of these theoretical perspectives, despite whatever positive outcomes they may tend toward, entail the production of knowledge about the ways in which the plight of nonhuman animals is structurally necessitated by our current system of political economy based on exploitative capitalism, violent militarism, and industrial technics. Moreover, they do not demand that we understand the subjugated status of nonhuman animals in our society as related to or concordant with the historical reality of oppressed human groups as well as with the domination of nature generally. Without seeking to limit the multiple pathways that liberatory pedagogy may presently take—that is, I recognize differences between sociopolitical struggles even as I seek to promote recognition of their common causes—my feeling is that a new paradigm3 of what might be inclusively termed “total liberation ecopedagogy” is now at hand and beginning to be more fully articulated in the practices of a vanguard of educators. This total liberation ecopedagogy a�empts to work intersectionally across and in opposition to all oppressions (including those of nonhuman animals) and for ecological sustainability. Producing what Haraway (1988) has called “situated knowledges,” total liberation ecopedagogy may in any given instance favor analysis 29
  28. 28. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... of the primacy of one social antagonism over another, or one set of antagonism over the others, in generating inequalities of power and privilege. Again, there is still room for the application of ecofeminist educational theory, for example, and it need not give way to the universalization of vegan Third World ecofeminist anticapitalist Queer disability (etc.) pedagogy, no ma�er how much I might welcome the la�er.4 But total liberation ecopedagogy, following the advances of multicultural educational theory, views oppression in systematic and complex terms, what Collins (2000) has termed the “matrix of domination.” This not only allows for a more refined analysis of the ways in which power circulates throughout nature and culture, to the systematic advantage of some and disadvantage of others, but by increasing the number of epistemic standpoints from which to teach and learn we free a potential multitude of educational subjects from the culture of silence generated by the dominant mainstream pedagogical and political platforms. To backtrack, save for perhaps lacking a strong commitment to the moral challenge that society’s treatment of nonhuman animals now poses for robustly democratic educational theory, those taking the socio-ecological turn in environmental education already tend to integrate intersectionality into their analyses. What distinguishes total liberation ecopedagogy, then, is its normative requirement that we also educate against what intersectional social psychologist Melanie Joy (2008) calls, “arguably the most entrenched and widespread form of exploitation in human history: speciesism” (p. 17). This would be to go beyond, for instance, teaching non-anthropocentric values. For by developing educational platforms that illuminate the socially-constructed nature of “species,” total liberation ecopedagogy does not seek to just destabilize human power in the abstract, but roots this in the need to support cultural and political practices that actively seek to overthrow speciesist relations across society. To put speciesism on the agenda in a major way is crucial now for a number of reasons. First, we live in a time of a mass species extinction event such as we have not witnessed on the planet for nearly 65 million years.5 The zoöcidal eradication of unprecedented numbers of mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, insects, and other animals that is now fully underway is analogous to the mass-murder of American bison or the great whales that took place during the 19th century. Only there, species were driven to extinction at the direct point of the gun 30
  29. 29. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 and harpoon; here, we must learn the ways in which speciesist ideology is folded into and intersects with nearly every array of social relations and institutional practice, including the institution of education proper (Kahn, 2007). A second reason to take up speciesism within intersectional pedagogy involves the exponential growth over the last few decades of the industrial factory farm model of animal agriculture as a worldwide standard. As animal advocates like Peter Singer (1975) have made famously clear, the ubiquitous low price and high availability of supermarket meat comes at a tremendous cost to the sentient nonhuman animals themselves, who spend whatever lives they have being tortured until their brutal slaughter in order to provide such meat. More recently, people are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental effects of factory farming—including its role in deforesting the Amazonian rainforests for soybean monocrops, its toxic effects on streams, water tables, soil, and the air local to such farms, and its being recognized as a primary cause in aggravating global warming. Moreover, recent books like Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (2005) and Eisnetz’s Slaughterhouse (2006) reveal how the nightmare of factory farms extends into its role as an exploitative and racist labor industry as well as its corrupting influence on public health in the name of maximized profiteering. Still a third reason I believe that it is important to demand an intersectional, anti-speciesist pedagogy at this time is because I believe that exactly this form of education has been developing within grassroots activist circles in recent years. What is more, slowly but surely, the “cognitive praxis” (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991, p. 44) of this movement pedagogy has started to become established within formal education across its various levels and to challenge prevailing approaches to environmental education and critical pedagogy. Yet, it is ultimately my argument that intersectional critical literacies forged from the practices of anti-oppressive/critical pedagogues, ecological educators, and nonhuman animal advocates remain, unfortunately, a potential to be far more powerfully realized in the future. In this essay, therefore, I draw upon a series of interviews conducted with nine new paradigm educators in order to chronicle and contextualize the challenges to their work across elementary and secondary education, higher education, and nonformal education sectors. By so doing, I do not seek to describe their total liberation practices in detail. Neither do I wish to suggest that each is the possessor of specific pedagogical a�ributes 31
  30. 30. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... (beyond their commitment to the development of the kind of critical intersectional literacies I hope for) that therefore allow me to create a character sketch of a total liberation ecopedagogue. None of these educators self-identifies to my knowledge as being “total lib,” and while I believe that all demonstrate anticipatory elements of and problems for a total liberation ecopedagogy built upon critical intersectional literacy practices, I also desire to let them speak for themselves as much as possible. I do aspire, however, to call a�ention through their stories to the crisis now faced by the form of total liberation ecopedagogy I theorize, even as we maintain that such pedagogy represents a coherent a�empt to respond to the crises of contemporary environmental education, critical pedagogy, and animal advocacy in kind. By so doing, I aim to provide a kind of critical counterstorytelling (Yosso, 2006)—tentative and introductory in scope—that may serve as a seed for future dialogue on the issues pertinent to these educators with a wide variety of more majoritarian environmental educators, as well as with their colleagues working primarily for either social justice or animal advocacy in education and other fields.6 Humane Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools Anyone interested in intersectional total liberation ecopedagogy simply must study the history of the humane education movement, which represents its original form.7 Emerging circa 1870 along with the formation of humane societies, humane education initially worked at the juncture of animal and child welfare, a�empting to encourage public sentiment for abandoned or neglected children and nonhuman animals. While the increase of social service agencies in the 20th century led to the narrowing of humane education, such that it became a pursuit largely concerned with ending domestic animal cruelty, the last two decades have found humane education reinventing and revisioning itself, at times in radical ways. In the 1980s, for example, humane education broadened its scope to include wildlife issues as well as to question the use and treatment of nonhuman animals in institutions such as zoos, aquariums, and circuses. Moreover, when the 1990s saw a surge of interest in the animal advocacy movement by citizens concerned with achieving progressive change across society, key humane educationalists such as David Selby and Zoe Weil responded by articulating how humane educational theory could integratively incorporate 32
  31. 31. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 environmental and human rights issues alongside its ongoing focus upon the violence, exploitation, and injustice done to nonhuman animals (Weil, 1998). According to Rae Sikora, who co-founded The Center for Compassionate Living (ultimately to become the Institute for Humane Education) with Weil in 1996, there were also strategic reasons for moving the field to an intersectional focus. For despite Sikora and Weil having developed a thriving certificate and M.A. program in humane education through the Institute that has trained over 1200 elementary and secondary-level educators, humane education has been described somewhat accurately as the “Ultima Thule” (Selby, 2000) of education – a far-away, unknown region, barely if at all recognized by emancipatory educators working in related endeavors such as environmental education or critical pedagogy because of its advocacy for nonhuman animals. Thus, Sikora believes that intersectionality has made it easier for humane education “to be seen as more consistent and credible” and that “More doors open for the work when it incorporates all life” (Sikora, Personal communication, 2008).8 Indeed, in the 32 years that she has been involved in catalyzing this work, she has witnessed it ripple outward from being virtually unpopulated to the point where many of the programs she designed now occur under others’ names and she is sometimes contacted by students who unknowingly communicate workshop or website ideas to her for which she was the original impetus (ibid.). But a critical problem for humane education remains its lack of adequate resources and school or other stakeholder support. For example, Dani Dennenberg, who obtained an M.Ed in Humane Education from the Institute for Humane Education student and founded Seeds for Change (a non-profit humane educational organization), found that her work as an adjunct faculty member and director of a small educational non-profit equated to less than $30,000 annually with no health care, benefits, or savings plans available to her to draw upon (Dennenberg, Personal communication, 2008). Further, when private funding for her organization expired a�er 6 years she was forced to retire her operation despite the success of having created one of the first high school courses devoted to examining global ethical issues from an intersectional humane perspective. The Canadian humane educator, Lesley Fox, who helped to found the Power of One secondary education program through the Vancouver Humane Society in 2006, provides additional evidence of humane 33
  32. 32. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... education’s chronic resource problem. Fox discovered that with a li�le ingenuity it was surprisingly easy to gain access to Canadian schools and to network with the Ministry of Education in British Columbia. As such, her program grew quickly to provide a wide- range of intersectional curricular offerings for any and all takers. However, as she relates: Our program was part of a small non-profit organization with a limited budget. There were no resources in terms of staff to help with presentations and grant writing and fundraising. The program became too much for one full time staff person to manage. The demand for the presentations and resources could not be met. Ultimately, the program was such a success it became its own undoing. (Fox, Personal communication, 2008) In our opinion, if the critical intersectional literacies of humane education can become be�er integrated into environmental education standards and frameworks, it will undoubtedly serve to more sufficiently support humane educators who might then realize the added benefit of stable employment opportunities within school districts. While I do not imagine that many schools consider themselves more cash positive than the majority of animal advocacy non-profits, it still must be the case that with greater legitimacy within formal education institutions the work of humane educators can more fruitfully advance and proliferate in a timely manner. Critical Intersectional Literacy Developments in Higher Education In order to achieve the developments that I would like to see happen in schools of elementary and secondary education, as well as in the ranks of grassroots activism, there will have to be a correlative shi� in the sphere of higher educational discourse to develop and teach critical intersectional literacies as part of a total liberation ecopedagogy movement. If environmental education degree programs integrate social science such that students are trained in issues of the brown agenda9 and environmental justice, or the ecological effects of globalization, this should translate into more critical forms of environmental studies for youth in schools that can supplement curricular forays privileging nature walks and outdoor appreciation exercises. What is additionally required, though, is that the “animals agenda” not be le� out of the equation. Too o�en forms of conservation science are still offered uncritically as a form of pedagogy that implies that 34
  33. 33. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 nonhuman animals are natural resources that can be managed to produce maximum sustainable yields or harvests. Relatedly, more and more students are asked to explore how invasive species are ecological threats without a corresponding demand that students question the histories of colonialism and world trade that have produced the invasive species problem. What is more, with its known advantages in contributing to a low ecological footprint, should any environmental educator be allowed to graduate today without having seriously investigated the ecology and politics of veganism? But how common is this practice really in higher education? Connie Russell, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Lakehead University and co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, seems to us to be a leader in environmental education that is working to transform the field in light of the total liberation-oriented problems I raise here. In her own work, she consciously organizes the curriculum to focus on “the interconnections between social and environmental justice and animal issues” (Russell, Personal communication, 2008). She is careful to point out that, in her opinion, this does not require the formation of a new educational field of study. Rather, Russell believes such critical intersectional literacy can emerge reconstructively within present forms of environmental education, including outdoor and experiential approaches: [T]here is a subset of outdoor educators out there who aren’t making connections to social issues and whose work seems too overly science education- focused, or about pursuing adventurous or recreation-oriented activities outside. But on the flipside, I also see many environmental educators who seem to have li�le experience with other animals or the more-than-human world. So I guess I get nervous when I see what almost looks like a discounting of outdoor experiential education approaches. For me, tackling anthropocentrism means paying some a�ention to natural history and ge�ing to know the places where we live and our more-than-human neighbours. It is not an either/or approach, a zero-sum game, but a broadening of our horizons (ibid.). Another intersectional educator I contacted is Julie Andrzejewski, who has explored the possibility of a new field for this work.10 Andrzejewski co-founded the M.A. program in Social Responsibility at St. Cloud State University in 1995, which she now directs. In recent years, Professor Andrzejewski has worked to radicalize what could otherwise be a social justice-oriented program through in-depth examinations of how the animal rights 35
  34. 34. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... movement offers an inclusive standpoint for the emancipation of oppressed persons and the restoration of environmental justice. While she finds that students increasingly have some familiarity with nonhuman animal issues, and overwhelmingly respond to her courses by changing their life practices and engaging in collective activism, she also guardedly believes that “Very few others are doing this work and there are very few support systems for it” (Andrzejewski, Personal communication, 2008). In 2006, Andrzejewski therefore a�empted to organize a Critical Interspecies Special Interest Group (SIG) within the American Educational Research Association in order to gather educators around these issues and provide them with a platform for ongoing research. However, the SIG proposal was rejected, ostensibly because the application commi�ee believed that the subject ma�er was already covered thematically by the SIG for Ecological and Environmental Education. Whether or not this is correct, and in Andrzejewski’s opinion it is not, I believe that this is further confirmation of the need for environmental education to step forward and demonstrate a leadership role on total liberation issues in order to accord critical intersectional literacies wider institutional legitimacy. The case of highly influential ecofeminist, Greta Gaard, supports this conclusion. Despite having produced a large body of important feminist work, she has found Women’s Studies itself to be an unwelcome home and thus has o�en had to strategically find courses in Interdisciplinary Studies, the Humanities, or English in order to teach. As she told me, “teaching ecofeminism has always been difficult since most introductory Women’s Studies textbooks still ignore the environment as well as the vast body of work produced by vegetarian (eco)feminists, and there is still no single introductory textbook for a course on ecofeminism, women and ecology, or feminist environmentalism” (Gaard, Personal communication, 2008). If teaching critical intersectional courses has proven difficult for Gaard, though, finding receptive colleagues who will not punish her for her radicalism has been harder still. While she remarked that her tenure at Fairhaven College, a place known for cu�ing-edge interdisciplinary pedagogy, was a warm experience, in another teaching appointment at the University of Minnesota-Duluth she felt that her politicized intersectional coursework was tolerated only because it was offered as a summer option that served to generate revenue at a time when other faculty did not care to work. More shocking still, the recent 36
  35. 35. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 release of Gaard’s book The Nature of Home (University of Arizona Press, 2008) was pointedly ignored by her colleagues in English at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, who then added to their protest, she said, by voting “overwhelmingly against retaining me due to my excessive emphasis on environmentalism, feminism, and creative writing” (ibid.) on ma�ers such as the suffering of animals. As I consider these stories about a total liberation ecopedagogy that works to include social, ecological, and animal justice issues in higher education, I must conclude that critical intersectional literacy is gaining ground but continues to encounter resistance. As the examples of Russell, Andrzejewski, and Gaard intimate, this new paradigm of pedagogy is excitedly surging forth on campuses across both Canada and the United States. Yet, there is also significant fear of and a�empts to repress it (Kahn, Forthcoming). For the time being, critical intersectional literacy practitioners will undoubtedly continue to face opposition in their professional and personal lives. Still, I am hopeful that a moment has finally arisen in which future perspectives on this struggle are starting to coalesce and to have the ear of ever more allies in academia and beyond. A Movement for Cognitive Praxis As previously noted, a major impetus to transformative change in higher education is coming from scholars who have one foot in, or ear open to, emancipatory grassroots social movements. As Connie Russell mused, “I entered academia as an activist and have remained one, just a different type of one than I originally envisioned…any social movement needs some members who can step back and analyze the work we are doing, and academics are in a unique position to do that. That is the beauty of academic/ activist collaboration” (Personal communication, 2008). With this in mind, then, I would like to briefly relate the current efforts of three emerging academic-activists that we believe are on the cu�ing-edge of furthering the type of critical intersectional literacy work representative of total liberation ecopedagogy. Breeze Harper is doing research on critical food geographies at University of California Davis and considers her scholarship a kind of “literary activism” (Harper, Personal communication, 2008). Several years ago, Harper came to examine the role diet had in her health as a black American woman and came to the opinion that she was a member of a demographic suffering environmental 37
  36. 36. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... racism, one whose diet was colonized by brutal corporate agendas designed to exploit life. She took this knowledge to a practical level and “decolonized” (ibid.) her diet by rejecting the Standard American Diet and instead adopted a whole food, plant-based diet instead. She also began to organize other vegan females of the African diaspora through a project called “Sistah Vegan!.”11 This has resulted in an anthology (Harper, Forthcoming) of black female voices “who resist and/or combat the systemic oppression that has manifested as diabetes, uterine fibroids, obesity, depression, environmental pollution, and the inhumane treatment of non- human animals” (Harper, Personal communication, 2008). More than a statement of identity politics, Harper hopes that this book can stimulate dialogue on issues of public health, environmental justice and sustainability, and the corporate food industry’s role in establishing the Standard American Diet. For her part, Lauren Corman, an assistant professor of critical animal studies at Brock University, has used her position as long- standing host of the radio show Animal Voices (CIUT 89.5) to put “environmental, social justice, and animal advocacy issues in conversation” with one another and with current scholarship (Corman, Personal communication, 2008). Interviewing a myriad of major activists and academics whose work she believes informs the animal rights movement, Corman is very interested in using her medium as a form of public pedagogy to encourage “a cross- fertilization of ideas” (ibid.). Specifically, she hopes the Animal Voices show can work pedagogically and politically to make: academic ideas more accessible to a wider audience, or…provide an entry point into theories while it simultaneously pushes scholars to demonstrate the practical relevance of their research. Additionally, it introduces the public and other animal activists to the burgeoning field of animal studies. Among the most important contributions, though, is that the radio show ekes out a space within the public sphere for critical perspectives on animals, while disrupting the stereotype that all animal activists are terrorists, humourless, self-righteous, hysterical, exclusively white and middle-class, North American, etc. Crucially, too, it demonstrates to other social justice and environmental movements that many animal activists and scholars are not single-issued in their approaches, which hopefully provides incentive for coalitions. Similarly, it promotes critique and reflexivity within the animal movements, and foregrounds a diversity of perspectives. Lastly, I would like to call a�ention to the work of Anthony Nocella, a doctoral student in Syracuse University’s Maxwell 38
  37. 37. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 School for Social Science and co-founder of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies.12 Nocella has served in the past as an organizer for Earth First!, animal rights and prisoner support campaigns, and has drawn upon his penchant for intersectional political collaboration as an editor of two path-breaking books on the animal liberation and revolutionary environmentalist movements, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? and Igniting a Revolution (Best & Nocella, 2004; 2006). Containing contributions from an extremely diverse mix of radical scholars and activists who are variously pushing for social or environmental justice as well as animal rights, Nocella sees these publications as an a�empt to forge solidarities between oppressed groups by effecting dialogue on issues of mutual (or potentially mutual) interest. Another way in which he has a�empted to link academic research and intersectional activism is by creating a non-profit organization, Outdoor Empowerment, which he described as “ecopedagogy in action—dedicated to providing alternatives to violence, environmental awareness, and empowerment skills in an outdoor se�ing for urban community members” (Personal communication, 2008). Currently, the organization works with youth in a detention center to critically explore their lived environments, practice conflict resolution exercises, and experiential methods for living according to what Nocella calls “the 5 Ss—safety, simplicity, sustainability, service and social justice” (ibid.). Concluding Remarks As should now be clear, it is a misnomer in some ways to label the educators I have here chronicled as either elementary/ secondary, post-secondary, or movement educators. Those with present or future careers as university faculty almost invariably have an interest in mobilizing their pedagogy amongst children and youth, and many of those involved in providing curricular materials and presentations to elementary and secondary schools either have been or are involved with developing formal graduate degree and certificate programs in fields such as humane education. Additionally, most if not all of these educators are involved with practice on the boundaries between formal and nonformal education, are teacher-activists, and should be regarded as cognitive praxists—public intellectuals who are integrating social movement theory, practice, and values into academic discourse as well as a�empting to bridge such discourse with the everyday needs of community organizations 39
  38. 38. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... or concerned citizenry. This ability to resist being standardized and confined within a particular educational sphere strikes me as a particularly crucial aspect of the form of total liberation work that is our interest. As the critical educator Paulo Freire remarked, education is not itself the lever of social change but it can play an important role to the degree that it works curricularly to generate counterhegemonic knowledge and stir the feelings of socio- political protest in students (Shor & Freire, 1987). In our opinion, the new paradigm of total liberation ecopedagogy that I have here a�empted to highlight should be understood as part of an evolving social movement that has been struggling to emerge over the last couple decades—one whose militant advocacy is informed by a holistic respect for life up to and including the planet and which strongly rebukes the ongoing instantiation of classism, racism, sexism, ableism, speciesism, and other “dominator hierarchies” (Eisler, 1988). Liberation pedagogy offering critical intersectional literacy has thus far been blocked (i.e., Selby’s “Ultima Thule”) from formal educational circles, in part, because it has critiqued the ideological blind spots of much that is considered legitimate educational discourse. Moreover, its transdisciplinarity and desire for affecting qualitative change in students’ identities pits this new pedagogical paradigm against mainstream discursive demands for specialization and quantitative accountability. But the time for critical intersectional literacy has finally arrived. I feel certain that a pedagogy for total liberation is no longer locked in the remote Hyperborean imagination of the ultra-radical Le� but is rather flooding like rays of light into the dawning work of a new generation of environmental and ecological educators, social justice-oriented critical pedagogues, anti-oppression teachers, humane education instructors, and other faculty with an abiding interest in the pedagogical aspects of realizing a be�er world for all beings. In other words, I believe that a conscientization of these fields is underway, which should produce significant changes both within the academy and the world-at-large. Yet, without dialogue across these fields, as well as between those working in other educational se�ings (be they elementary, secondary, post-secondary, or nonformal), the transformative possibilities resulting from these pedagogies will remain limited. What is more, the dialogue that I feel is necessary does not translate merely into trading syllabi or thoughts on what 40
  39. 39. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 constitute emancipatory “best practices.” Instead, it must foster the kind of critical encounters that best relate the situation of the school to that of society, as well as that analyze the structural forces that disrupt a�empts to alter the institutional status-quo of our everyday lives. I also seek dialogue toward what the philosopher Steven Best (2003) has termed “interspecies alliance politics,” or the organization of solidarities across a wide-range of educational actors that should in turn propel them to occupy spaces of power. In order for this to happen, however, those working for environmental education and animal rights need to begin to robustly engage with political issues such as white supremacy and class privilege, even as it suggests that those working for the benefit of peace and equality between human groups need to critique their own potentially speciesist and/or industrialist-urbanist assumptions. Undeniably, it still is not easy to think, much less work, intersectionally without quickly spiraling into a bevy of contradictions. But these contradictions should become the foundational context for new progressive theories and literacy practices, not the raison d’etre for debunking them. We must try to unravel the systemic causes of the present misery and end our future peril. That we can now name zoöcide (Kahn, 2006) as the historical condition for our work in environmental education means that we possess both the necessary and sufficient condition for the field’s radical reconstruction in accordance with a total liberation ethic. The massive desecration of our planetary ecology that is now taking place, a crime that includes an unparalleled a�ack upon the great mass of nonhuman animals and the generation of global social upheaval that equates to dire poverty, disease, starvation, and the unending threat of armed violence for many billions of people, simply demands that we aspire to nothing less. References Allen, A. & You, N. (Eds.) (2002). Sustainable urbanization, bridging the green and brown agendas. Jenner City Print, Ltd. UK: UN-Habitat, Department for International Development, and the Development Planning Unit. Andrzejewski, J. (2003). Teaching animal rights at the university: Philosophy and practice. Journal of animal liberation philosophy and policy, 1(1). 41
  40. 40. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... Andrzejewski, J., Baltodano, M. P., & Symcox, L. (Eds.) (2009). Social Justice, Peace, and Environmental Education: Transformative Standards. New York: Routledge. Bell, A. C. & Russell, C. L. (2000). Beyond human, beyond words: Anthropocentrism, critical pedagogy, and the poststructuralist turn. Canadian journal of education, 25(3), 188-203. Best, S. (2003). Common natures, shared fates: Toward an interspecies alliance politics. Impact press (Dec/Jan). Best, S. and Nocella, II, A. J. (Eds.) (2006). Igniting a revolution: Voices in defense of the Earth. Oakland, CA: AK Press. ——. (Eds.) (2004). Terrorists or freedom fighters?: Reflections on the liberation of animals. New York: Lantern Press. Capra, F. (1984). The turning point: Science, society and the rising culture. New York: Bantam Books. Cole, A. G. (2007). Expanding the field: Revisiting environmental education principles through multidisciplinary frameworks. The journal of environmental education, 38(2), 35-45. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Eisler, R. (1988). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper. Eisnitz, G. (2006). Slaughterhouse: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment inside the U.S. meat industry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Eyerman, R. & Jamison, A. (1991). Social movements: A cognitive approach. University park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Fawce�, L., Bell, A, & Russell, C. (2002). Guiding our environmental praxis: Teaching for social and environmental justice. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Teaching sustainability at universities: Towards curriculum greening. New York: Peter Lang. Gado�i, M. (2008). Education for sustainability: A critical contribution to the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Green theory & praxis: The journal of ecopedagogy, 4(1), 15-64. Gaard, G. C. (1993). Ecofeminisim: Women, animals, nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. González-Gaudiano, E. (2005). Education for sustainable development: Configuration and meaning. Policy futures in education, 3(3), 243–250. Greenwood, D. A. (2008). A critical pedagogy of place: From gridlock to parallax. Environmental education research, 14(3), 336-348. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both words: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational researcher, 32(4), 3–12. Gruenewald, D. A. & Smith, G. (Eds.) (2007). Place-based education in a global age: Local diversity. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 42
  41. 41. Social Context of Education, Ljubljana 2009 Gray-Donald, J. & Selby, D. (Eds.) (2008). Green frontiers: Environmental educators dancing away from the mechanism. Ro�erdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledge: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies, 14.3, 575-599. Harper, A. B. (Forthcoming). Sistah vegan!: Decolonizing our diets, Healing our bodies, liberating our souls. New York: Lantern Books. Hay, C. (1999). Crisis and the structural transformation of the state: Interrogating the process of change. British journal of politics and international relations, 1(3), 317-344. Humes, B. (2008). Moving toward a liberatory pedagogy for all species: Mapping the need for dialogue between humane and anti-oppressive education. Green theory & praxis: The journal of ecopedagogy, 4(1), 65-85. Joy, M. (2008). Strategic action for animals: A handbook on strategic movement building, organizing, and activism for animal liberation. New York: Lantern Press. Kahn, R. (Forthcoming). Operation get fired: A chronicle of the academic repression of radical environmentalist and animal rights advocate-scholars. In S. Best, A. Nocella, II, & P. McLaren (Eds.), Academic repression: Reflections from the academic-industrial complex. Oakland, CA: AK Press. ——. (2008a). From education for sustainable development to ecopedagogy: Sustaining capitalism or sustaining life? Green theory & praxis: The journal of ecopedagogy, 4(1), 1-14. ——. (2008b). Towards ecopedagogy: Weaving a broad-based pedagogy of the liberation for animals, nature and the oppressed peoples of the Earth. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. ——. (2007). Toward a critique of paideia and humanitas: (Mis)education and the global ecological crisis. In I. Gur-Ze’ev & K. Roth (Eds.), Education in the era of globalization. New York: Springer. ——. (2006). The educative potential of ecological militancy in an age of big oil: Towards a Marcusean ecopedagogy. Policy futures in education, 4(1), 31-44. ——. (2002). Paulo Freire and eco-justice: Updating Pedagogy of the Oppressed for the age of ecological calamity. Freire online journal, 1(1). Kahn, R. & Nocella, II, A. J. (Forthcoming). Greening the academy: Environmental studies in the liberal arts. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Kellner, D. (2005). Media spectacle and the crisis of democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Press. 43
  42. 42. Richard Kahn: Theorizing a new Paradigm of Ecopedagogy... McKenzie, M. (2005) The ‘post-post period’ and environmental education research. Environmental education research, 11(4), 401- 412. McLaren, P. & Houston, D. (2005). Revolutionary ecologies: Ecosocialism and critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren, Capitalists & conquerors: A critical pedagogy against empire. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Li�lefield. Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd. ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. O’Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Pope, C. & Rauber, P. (2004). Strategic ignorance: Why the Bush administration is recklessly destroying a century of environmental progress. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Santayana, G. (1906). The life of progress. New York: Scribner’s Sons. Schlosser, E. (2005). Fast food nation. New York: Harper Perennial. Seed, J., Macy, J. Flemming, P. & Naess, A. (1988). Thinking like a mountain: Toward a council of all beings. British Columbia, CA: New Society Publishers. Selby, D. (2000). Humane education: Widening the circle of compassion and justice. In T. Goldstein & D. Selby (Eds.), Weaving connections: Educating for peace, social and environmental justice. Toronto, CA: Sumach Press. ——. (1995). Earthkind: A teacher’s handbook on humane education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham. Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: Random House. Stapp, W. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of environmental education, 1(3), 31-36. Weil, Z. (2004). The power and the promise of humane education. British Columbia, CA: New Society Publishers. ——. (1998). Humane education: Charting a new course. The animals agenda (September/October), 19-21. Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline. New York: Routledge. Notes 1 See h�p://www.epa.gov/enviroed/basic.html. 2 For additional scholars exploring the crossroads of environmental education and critical pedagogy, see Greenwood (2008, p. 338). 3 By “new paradigm” we do not mean to assert that the work that we chronicle does not have a significant history of theory and 44

×