Advertisement

Assessing Interdependent Responsibility

  • Molly Ware
  • Rosalie Romano
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 41)

Abstract

Education has the potential to engage youth and make space for them to step into their power as they experience and critically consider themselves part of the wider world. This type of learning and teaching is becoming increasingly challenging in an educational climate where education policies and assessment measures are based on a sense of responsibility as accountability. In this rejoinder, we argue that accountability mandates lead youth away from the type of responsibility that leads to a responsive and engaged population in interconnected worlds and explore more evolved, organic types of responsibility as integral to our learning with youth in education. These types of responsibility rest on conceptions of learning as transformative. We discuss how we can measure this sort of learning and responsibility in schools. Drawing on voices of participants involved in a service-learning experience, we explore the consequences of an education that fosters these types of responsibility and emphasize the potential of an education that fosters interdependent responsibility:

Keywords

Homework Assignment Dependent Responsibility Transformative Learning Independent Responsibility Interconnected World 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Boggs, G. L. (2011). The next American Revolution: Sustainable activism for the twenty-first century. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Rev. ed.). Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  3. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: New scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  4. Dalai Lama (1999). Ethics for the new millennium. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2008). Innovation and complexity thinking 2.0. Retrieved May 22, 2011, from http://emmtii.wikispaces.asu.edu/file/view/innovation_and_complexity_thinking_2.0-brent_davis_and_dennis_sumara.pdf
  7. Dweck, C. (2007, December). The secret to raising smart kids. Scientific American Mind, 18(6), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  9. Jordan, C. (2009). Gyre from Running the Numbers II: Portraits of global mass culture (2009–2011). Retrieved May 19, 2011, from http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/rtn2/#gyre
  10. Lappe, F. M. (2009). Liberation ecology: Reframing six disempowering ideas that keep us from aligning with nature—even our own (Limited 1st ed.). Cambridge: Small Planet Media.Google Scholar
  11. Romano, R. (2000). Forging an educative community: The wisdom of love, power of understanding and the terror of it all. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Senge, P. M., Cambron McCabe, N. H., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Kleiner, A., & Dutton, J. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  13. TED (Producer). (2011, May 25, 2011). John Hunter on the World Peace Game. Podcast retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/john_hunter_on_the_world_peace_game.html
  14. Twist, L. (2003). The soul of money: Reclaiming the wealth of our inner resources. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Woodring College of EducationWestern Washington UniversityBellinghamUSA

Personalised recommendations