Who Sets the Limits of Educational Freedom? Exploring Bakhtin’s Architectonic Self as a Response to Matusov’s “A Student’s Right to Freedom of Education”

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Sep 18, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2020.349

Main Article Content

Jeffry King
Texas State University

Abstract

This article is a response to Matusov's argument for a student's right to define the limits of their own education. While I agree with Matusov's premise, I argue that his solution is framed as a dualism, which may undermine the dialogic principles of his call to students' educational freedoms. I propose that viewing students' educational freedoms through Bakhtin's arhcitectonic self removes the dualism of Matusov's argument, and close by providing an example of the architectonic self in practice within the teacher-student relationship.

Article Details

How to Cite
King, J. (2020). Who Sets the Limits of Educational Freedom? Exploring Bakhtin’s Architectonic Self as a Response to Matusov’s “A Student’s Right to Freedom of Education”. Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 8, SF59-SF64. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2020.349
Issue
Vol. 8 (2020)
Section
Special Issue: Students’ Freedom of Education

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

References

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Ed.; C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Response to a question from the Novy Mir editorial staff (V. Mcgee, Trans.). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres & other late essays (pp. 1-9). University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act (V. Liapunov, Trans.; V. Liapunov & M. Holquist, Eds.). University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Author and hero in aesthetic activity (V. Liapunov, Trans.). In M. Holquist & V. Liapunov (Eds.), Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin (pp. 4-256). University of Texas Press.

Bleazby, J. (2013). Social reconstruction learning: Dualism, Dewey and philosophy inn schools. Taylor and Francis.

Emerson, C. (1995). Bakhtin at 100: Art, ethics, and the architectonic self. The Centennial Review, 39(3), 397-418.

Emerson, C. (1997). The first hundred years of Mikhail Bakhtin. Princeton University Press.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. http://www.jstor.com/stable/5624888

Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2018). Visible learning feedback. Routledge.

Holquist, M. (1990). Introduction: The architectonics of answerability. In M. Holquist & V. Liapunov (Eds.), Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin. University of Texas Press.

Holquist, M. (1993). Forward. In V. Liapunov & M. Holquist (Eds.), Toward a philosophy of the act (pp. vii-xv). University of Texas Press.

Holquist, M. (2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world (2nd ed.). Routledge.

King, J. (2017). Pedagogy as tension: Exploring the relationality of teaching and learning for a post-standardized education. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 12(1), 25-40.

Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Nova Science Publishers.

Matusov, E. (2020). A student’s and a teacher’s right to freedom of education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 8 (2020), SF1-SF28. doi:10.5195/dpj.2020.356.

Plumwood, V. (2002). The politics of reason: Toward a feminist logic. In R. Falmagne & M.Hass (Eds.), Representing reason: Feminist theory and formal logic (pp. 11-44). Rowman & Littlefield.

Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. http://www.jstor.com/stable/23369143

Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case feedback analysis. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 59(4), 796-824. https://doi-org.libproxy.txstate.edu/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x