NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ855402
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2009-Aug
Pages: 13
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 68
ISSN: ISSN-1359-866X
Cutting Your Losses: Could Best-Practice Pedagogy Involve Acknowledging that Even Robust Hope May Be Vain?
Schuurmans-Stekhoven, James
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, v37 n3 p333-345 Aug 2009
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. (Contains 5 notes.)
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Adult Education; Higher Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: Australia