TY - JOUR
T1 - Cutting Your Losses
T2 - Could Best-Practice Pedagogy Involve Acknowledging that Even Robust Hope may be Vain?
AU - Schuurmans-Stekhoven, James
N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. ISSNs: 1359-866X;
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - A recent special issue of "Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education" (Vol. 35, Issue 3, 2007) championed "robust hope" as fundamental to achieving educational utopias, and yet key features of hope were largely overlooked. Although hope feels good and has utility in some circumstances, in other situations different motivations--positive (e.g. curiosity) or negative (e.g. frustration)--may offer greater pedagogical value. Given its intrinsic uncertainty, robust hope is often indistinguishable from vain hope (before the fact). Hence, robust hope may lead to: (1) failure; (2) an exacerbation of existing judgement biases; and (3) emotional reasoning. Given these attendant risks, best-practice principles require that the "net" pedagogical impact of robust hope be assessed. Occasionally, cutting one's losses is rational--not cynical or apathetic, as suggested by earlier contributors. Positioning robust hope as "realistic risk taking" does not resolve the aforementioned problems. In the end, a combination of motivations (possibly, although not necessarily, including hope) will likely provide the best pedagogical outcomes.
AB - A recent special issue of "Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education" (Vol. 35, Issue 3, 2007) championed "robust hope" as fundamental to achieving educational utopias, and yet key features of hope were largely overlooked. Although hope feels good and has utility in some circumstances, in other situations different motivations--positive (e.g. curiosity) or negative (e.g. frustration)--may offer greater pedagogical value. Given its intrinsic uncertainty, robust hope is often indistinguishable from vain hope (before the fact). Hence, robust hope may lead to: (1) failure; (2) an exacerbation of existing judgement biases; and (3) emotional reasoning. Given these attendant risks, best-practice principles require that the "net" pedagogical impact of robust hope be assessed. Occasionally, cutting one's losses is rational--not cynical or apathetic, as suggested by earlier contributors. Positioning robust hope as "realistic risk taking" does not resolve the aforementioned problems. In the end, a combination of motivations (possibly, although not necessarily, including hope) will likely provide the best pedagogical outcomes.
U2 - 10.1080/13598660903056523
DO - 10.1080/13598660903056523
M3 - Article
SN - 1359-866X
VL - 37
SP - 333
EP - 345
JO - Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
JF - Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
IS - 3
ER -