Decolonizing the Classroom in Social Justice Learning: Perspectives on Access and Inclusion for Participants Living with Disabilities
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Freire (2000) suggested that all teaching is political; social justice teaching is arguably deeply rooted in encouraging a transformative practice that reduces social inequities. The intersectional identities and realities experienced by classroom participants shape their knowledge of and perspectives on studies based in social justice and, therefore, educators should strive to create lessons that are not in conflict with the knowledge and perspectives of their students (Epstein, 2009). The authors explored how the Coady International Institute teaching staff – who were primarily engaged in leadership training with development practitioners from around the world – included the realities experienced by persons living with disabilities in the global South in their curriculum and classroom discussions. Their research focused on the teaching staff’s existing knowledge of disabled persons’ movements and lived realities in the global South and how their course content addressed those realities. A critical component of this work included content development and direction from persons living with disabilities who have experience in global development studies and in pedagogical design in adult learning contexts. This content, cocreated and/or compiled by individuals with lived experience, will be shared both internally and externally to Coady graduates working in organizations around the world.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Decolonizing the Classroom in Social Justice Learning: Perspectives on Access and Inclusion for Participants Living with Disabilities
- Date Crossref
- 04/02/2019
- Éditeur
- Emerald Publishing Limited
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.