DOCSLIB.ORG

Cutting Edge Controversy: the Politics of Animal Dissection and Responses to Student Objection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cutting Edge Controversy: the Politics of Animal Dissection and Responses to Student Objection Lakehead University Knowledge Commons,http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca Electronic Theses and Dissertations Electronic Theses and Dissertations from 2009 2012-11-10 Cutting edge controversy: The politics of animal dissection and responses to student objection Oakley, Jan http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca/handle/2453/180 Downloaded from Lakehead University, KnowledgeCommons Cutting Edge Controversy: The Politics of Animal Dissection and Responses to Student Objection Jan Oakley A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Studies FACULTY OF EDUCATION LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY Thunder Bay, Ontario © Jan Oakley 2011 i ABSTRACT This mixed methods study investigated the experiences and perspectives of former Ontario high school students and current Ontario science and biology teachers toward animal dissection, objection to dissection, and choice policies that grant students the right to opt out of dissection and use an alternative instead. Data was collected via a student questionnaire (n=311), a teacher questionnaire (n=153), and interviews with eight students and nine teachers. Quantitative and qualitative data analyses and reporting techniques were employed within a humane education and critical pedagogy framework to explore the experiences and perspectives of both groups. Overall, the findings indicate that dissection remains a prevalent, yet contested practice. The majority of students (94.8%) reported having been offered dissection in high school, but almost a quarter (24%) reported harbouring objections to the practice and only 60.8% indicated they were given a choice of whether to dissect or to use an alternative. Those who objected reported a range of teacher responses to their objection, including teachers pressuring them to participate, asking them to join another group of students to observe a dissection, providing them with a dissection alternative, and warning them of compromised grades. While most teachers expressed concerns with both animal dissection and the use of dissection alternatives, 87.5% agreed or strongly agreed that real animal dissection is important to the teaching of biology. Approximately three quarters of teachers (73.7%) reported advising students verbally that they could opt out of dissection, but less than half (47.5%) believed choice policies should be implemented in the classroom, whereas 86.7% of students agreed or strongly agreed that schools should have choice policies in place. The findings point to a need for formalized student choice policies to be adopted in all schools to ensure that students who are opposed to dissection have explicit access to alternatives, and teachers are prepared to accommodate those who object. The successful implementation of choice policies requires teacher education, curricular guidance, institutional supports, and ultimately a paradigm shift in which dissection is no longer positioned as the pedagogical norm. i ii i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people played a part in this research and helped me realize this study. Participants, my supervisor and committee members, pilot testers, professionals in science and animal advocacy fields, friends, family, and others have continually inspired, challenged, and assisted me on this journey. I am extremely grateful to the extensive community of people who helped this research come to fruition. My biggest debt of gratitude is owed to the 464 individuals who participated in this study and shared their insights, perspectives, and stories with me. There were points in this process when I was astounded by their generosity and interest in the topic. It should go without saying that without these individuals, this research would not have been possible. Thank you to all of the students and teachers whose experiences are the foundation of this work. My supervisor, Dr. Connie Russell, and committee members, Dr. Lisa Korteweg and Dr. Xavier Fazio, were supportive and encouraging at all points of this process. Thank you Connie for your ongoing enthusiasm, friendship, sense of humour, and insight into the research process. You have made my experience as a graduate student an extremely positive one and I couldn‟t have asked for a better supervisor! Thank you to Lisa for sharing your stories with me and asking constructive questions along the way, and to Xavier for your support and knowledge, and for encouraging me to include teachers in the research design, which resulted in a much stronger study. Thank you also to Dr. Joan Chambers, internal reviewer, for your input, and to Dr. Jonathan Balcombe, external reviewer, for your much-appreciated role in this process. My research was helped by several people in the field who took time to promote my work or answer my email or phone inquiries. I am grateful to the Science Teachers‟ Association of Ontario for advertising my questionnaire to teachers, and to Lakehead University (Thunder Bay and Orillia campuses) for advertising my questionnaire to students. I was also pleased to be interviewed about my work on Animal Voices CIUT 98.5 FM radio station—thank you to Lauren Corman for this opportunity! Thanks are also owed to many others who helped to answer iii my questions or find resources to inform my work: Lesley Fox (Frogs Are Cool), Jonathan Balcombe, Dawn McPherson, and Angela Moxley (Humane Society of the United States), Tim Battle (Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), James Collins (WARDS/ Boreal biological supply company), Ryan Huling and Drew Winter (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Nicole Green (Animalearn), Erika Sullivan (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), and Pat Tohill (World Society for the Protection of Animals). Thirty-two people pilot-tested my questionnaires and provided helpful feedback. Thank you to Mira Bajovic, John Friesen, Anoop Gupta, Gail Kuhl, Michelle Leclair, Josh Lynn, Lena Mangoff, Wayne Melville, Frank Nezavdal, Blair Niblett, Dianne Oakley, Norm Oakley, Snezana Ratkovic, Kelly Rizzo, Emily Root, Teresa Socha, Phil Teeuwsen, Judy Wakefield, Christina van Barneveld and the many others who remained anonymous in the process. Your feedback was instrumental in helping me to improve and refine my research instruments. Friends, colleagues, and faculty in the PhD program have also been an incredible support system and a community with whom to discuss my research. A special thank you is owed to Gail Kuhl, Blair Niblett, Georgann Watson, Lex Scully, and Anoop Gupta for insightful conversations over the years. Thank you also to Barb Parker for many excellent discussions over coffee, and to Michelle Leclair for ongoing friendship and interest in my work. Faculty at Lakehead outside of my committee have also been helpful in various ways; thank you to Don Kerr for helping me to understand the politics of student choice policies, David Peerla for forwarding helpful articles to me, Wayne Melville for sharing my questionnaire with students and connecting me with Thunder Bay school teachers, and Bob Jickling for ongoing conversations (and pizza parties!) throughout. My family has always been supportive of my work. Thank you Mom and Dad, Judy and Michael for your ongoing interest and the many ways you have helped me. Last but not least, having a partner and two feline companions during this process has been invaluable! A huge thank you to Josh Lynn for creating a home full of laughter, love, and good food, and for helping me to maintain balance through it all. i iv v This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support that made this study possible. v DEDICATION This research is dedicated to the nonhuman animals who are implicated most directly in the controversies surrounding animal dissection. The estimates of how many animals are killed each year for classroom dissections range from 6 million to 12 million, making animals such as frogs, rats, turtles, fetal pigs, crayfish, cats, worms, perch, starfish, birds, clams, grasshoppers, rabbits, cows, sheep, and minks (to name a sampling) a considerable group in this research, with an obvious stake in it: their very lives. Although this research is focused on responses to dissection within the human community, it is never far from my mind that other species are deeply implicated and at the core of this research. This work is dedicated to them. v vi i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….….….. i Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….…….… ii Dedication………..……………………………………………………………….….…… v Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….…….…... vi Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research ..………………………….….………..…….. 1 Personal Background and Perspective on Dissection………………..…….…..…… 2 Theoretical Framework……………..………………………………..…….…..…… 8 Humane Education ……………………………………………………….….. 9 Critical Pedagogy… …………………………………………………...…….. 12 Research Focus and Design …………..………………………………..……….….. 14 Participants……………….…………..……………………...………..…..….. 15 Students…………………..…..……………………...………..…..….. 15 Teachers...………………..…..……………………...………..…..….. 17 Research Questions……………….….……………………...………..…..….. 18 Questions for student participants...………………...………..…..…... 18 Questions for teacher participants...………………...………..…...….. 18 A Mixed Methods Approach….………..………………………………..….... 19 A Brief History of Mixed Methods Research and the “Paradigm Wars”…..… 21 Methods and Procedures…………..…………………………………..…….…..….. 24 Questionnaires………….…………..……………………...………..….....….. 25
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reasonable Humans and Animals: an Argument for Vegetarianism
    BETWEEN THE SPECIES Issue VIII August 2008 www.cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism Nathan Nobis Philosophy Department Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA USA www.NathanNobis.com [email protected] “It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold.” - Peter Singer “It's a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done.” - Harriet Beecher Stowe In my experience of teaching philosophy, ethics and logic courses, I have found that no topic brings out the rational and emotional best and worst in people than ethical questions about the treatment of animals. This is not surprising since, unlike questions about social policy, generally about what other people should do, moral questions about animals are personal. As philosopher Peter Singer has observed, “For most human beings, especially in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at mealtimes: we eat Between the Species, VIII, August 2008, cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ 1 them.”1 For most of us, then, our own daily behaviors and choices are challenged when we reflect on the reasons given to think that change is needed in our treatment of, and attitudes toward, animals. That the issue is personal presents unique challenges, and great opportunities, for intellectual and moral progress. Here I present some of the reasons given for and against taking animals seriously and reflect on the role of reason in our lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Sentience Denial: Muddying the Waters
    Sneddon, Lynne U.; Lopez-Luna, Javier; Wolfenden, David C.C.; Leach, Matthew C.; Valentim, Ana M.; Steenbergen, Peter J.; Bardine, Nabila; Currie, Amanda D.; Broom, Donald M.; and Brown, Culum (2018) Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters. Animal Sentience 21(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1317 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sneddon, Lynne U.; Lopez-Luna, Javier; Wolfenden, David C.C.; Leach, Matthew C.; Valentim, Ana M.; Steenbergen, Peter J.; Bardine, Nabila; Currie, Amanda D.; Broom, Donald M.; and Brown, Culum (2018) Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters. Animal Sentience 21(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1317 Authors Lynne U. Sneddon, Javier Lopez-Luna, David C.C. Wolfenden, Matthew C. Leach, Ana M. Valentim, Peter J. Steenbergen, Nabila Bardine, Amanda D. Currie, Donald M. Broom, and Culum Brown This article is available in Animal Sentience: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ animsent/vol3/iss21/1 Animal Sentience 2018.115: Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been reviewed, revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters Lynne U.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society
    Proceedings of the Conference Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society held at the University of Exeter, UK 10 March 2012 © CPAS convenors, editors and individual named contributors, 2013 Some rights reserved Copyright in contributions to these proceedings rests with their respective authors. Copyright to the overall collection and arrangement and to any other material in this document rests with the convenors of CPAS and the editors of its proceedings. In the spirit of open-access publishing and with a commitment to the intellectual commons, reuse and distribution of these proceedings for non-commercial purposes is permitted and encouraged, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution± NonCommercial±NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales licence, which can be read at: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ Amongst other things, this licence requires that you attribute material you reproduce to its author, and make clear to those you share it with that they too may reproduce it under the terms of the licence. Anything outside the licence, especially commercial use, requires the express permission of the editors and conference convenors, or of individual authors. Requests to the former should be directed to: [email protected] Edited by Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling Contents Introduction by the editors 5 Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling — Contributions in brief — About CPAS — Acknowledgements — Conference programme Campaigning techniques 11 Keynote address by Dr Richard D. Ryder Animal rights: moral crusade or social
    [Show full text]
  • A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2012 Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics Joel P. MacClellan University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation MacClellan, Joel P., "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1433 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Joel P. MacClellan entitled "Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. John Nolt, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Jon Garthoff, David Reidy, Dan Simberloff Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) MINDING NATURE: A DEFENSE OF A SENTIOCENTRIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Joel Patrick MacClellan August 2012 ii The sedge is wither’d from the lake, And no birds sing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Animals in Higher Education
    THE USE OF P R O B L E M S, A L T E R N A T I V E S , & RECOMMENDA T I O N S HUMANE SOCIETY PR E S S by Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D. PUBLIC PO L I C Y SE R I E S Public Policy Series THE USE OF An i m a l s IN Higher Ed u c a t i o n P R O B L E M S, A L T E R N A T I V E S , & RECOMMENDA T I O N S by Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D. Humane Society Press an affiliate of Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., has been associate director for education in the Animal Res e a r ch Issues section of The Humane Society of the United States since 1993. Born in England and raised in New Zealand and Canada, Dr . Balcombe studied biology at York University in Tor onto before obtaining his masters of science degree from Carleton University in Ottawa and his Ph.D. in ethology at the University of Tennessee. Ack n ow l e d g m e n t s The author wishes to thank Andrew Rowan, Martin Stephens, Gretchen Yost, Marilyn Balcombe, and Francine Dolins for reviewing and commenting on earlier versions of this monograph. Leslie Adams, Kathleen Conlee, Lori Do n l e y , Adrienne Gleason, Daniel Kos s o w , and Brandy Richardson helped with various aspects of its research and preparation. Copyright © 2000 by The Humane Society of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan Balcombe
    Edition: UK US AU Sign in Beta About us Subscribe This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here Search News US World Sports Comment Culture Business Money Environment Science Travel Tech Media Life & style Data News Science My bright idea Series: My bright idea Previous | Next | Index Jonathan Balcombe: 'Stop being beastly Share 1 to hens' Tweet 0 Animal behaviour scientist Jonathan Balcombe says that our 0 treatment of animals remains medieval despite a flood of studies shedding light on how they experience the world Sharre 0 Email James Randerson The Observer, Saturday 24 April 2010 Jump to comments (13) Article history Science On Science Animal behaviour Most viewed Latest World news Last 24 hours Animal welfare 1. The 'science of dating' and why it Series should make you My bright idea angry More from My bright idea on 2. MPs deliver their damning verdict: Homeopathy is useless and unethical Science Animal behaviour 3. Vegetarians more likely to think they are unhealthy, study finds World news 4. Golden Meaning: 55 graphic artists reveal the Animal welfare maths of the golden ratio More features Jonathan Balcombe: 'Sentience is the bedrock of ethics.' Photograph: Katherine 5. Internet trolls are also real-life trolls Rose More interviews More most viewed Chickens recognise human beauty, starlings can be pessimistic and elephants grieve for their fallen comrades: these are the perhaps surprising claims of Dr Jonathan Balcombe, an independent animal Today's best video behaviour research scientist. In a new book, he argues that a flood of studies of species ranging from minnows to monkeys adds up to a revolution in our understanding of the way other animals experience the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare
    ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE Marc Bekoff Editor Greenwood Press Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE Edited by Marc Bekoff with Carron A. Meaney Foreword by Jane Goodall Greenwood Press Westport, Connecticut Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare / edited by Marc Bekoff with Carron A. Meaney ; foreword by Jane Goodall. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–313–29977–3 (alk. paper) 1. Animal rights—Encyclopedias. 2. Animal welfare— Encyclopedias. I. Bekoff, Marc. II. Meaney, Carron A., 1950– . HV4708.E53 1998 179'.3—dc21 97–35098 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright ᭧ 1998 by Marc Bekoff and Carron A. Meaney All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 97–35098 ISBN: 0–313–29977–3 First published in 1998 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Printed in the United States of America TM The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10987654321 Cover Acknowledgments: Photo of chickens courtesy of Joy Mench. Photo of Macaca experimentalis courtesy of Viktor Reinhardt. Photo of Lyndon B. Johnson courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library Archives. Contents Foreword by Jane Goodall vii Preface xi Introduction xiii Chronology xvii The Encyclopedia 1 Appendix: Resources on Animal Welfare and Humane Education 383 Sources 407 Index 415 About the Editors and Contributors 437 Foreword It is an honor for me to contribute a foreword to this unique, informative, and exciting volume.
    [Show full text]
  • The Agency Account of Moral Status: Defending the Equal Moral Status of Humans and Non-Human Animals
    The Agency Account of Moral Status: Defending the Equal Moral Status of Humans and Non-Human Animals Marc Gareth Wilcox Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Philosophy PhD University of Leeds School of Philosophy, Religion and the History of Science September 2017 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy have been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. © 2017 The University of Leeds and Marc Gareth Wilcox. Acknowledgements I could not have completed this thesis without the help and support of some important individuals. Whilst I cannot thank everyone who has helped me by name, there are some important people who deserve a special mention. First of all I must of course thank my supervisors, Gerald Lang and Pekka Väyrynen. Through constantly challenging my ideas both of these individuals have pushed me to do better, clarify my ideas and develop my arguments further. Without their input this thesis would not be as clear and well-developed as it is. I must also thank Pekka for helping me navigate the bureaucratic university processes surrounding completing a PhD and providing me with a book for every problem I encountered. I would also like to thank my examiners Helen Steward and Mark Rowlands. Other than fulfilling their roles as examiners, the work of both of these individuals has played an important part in the development of my research.
    [Show full text]
  • A Moral Argument for Veganism
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 2016 A Moral Argument for Veganism Dan Hooley University of Toronto Nathan Nobis Morehouse College Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_aafhh Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, and the Other Nutrition Commons Recommended Citation Hooley, D., & Nobis, N. (2015). A moral argument for veganism. Philosophy comes to dinner: Arguments about the ethics of eating, 92-108. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A MORAL ARGUMENT FOR VEGANISM By Dan Hooley (U. Toronto) and Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College) In Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments About the Ethics of Eating, Edited by Andrew Chignell, Terence Cuneo, Matthew C. Halteman, Routledge, 2016. (Amazon) I. Introduction In this essay, we argue for dietary veganism.1 Our case has two steps. First, we argue that, in most circumstances, it is morally wrong to raise animals to produce meat, dairy products, most eggs (a possible exception we discuss is eggs from pet chickens) and most other animal food products. Turning animals into food, and using them for their byproducts, causes serious harms to animals that are morally unjustified: that is, the reasons given to justify causing these kinds of harms – goods or alleged goods that result from animal farming and slaughter – are inadequate to justify the bad done to animals. This is true for both conventional ‘factory farming’ methods of raising and killing animals and small-scale, boutique animal farming and slaughter.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook for NGO Success with a Focus on Animal Advocacy
    HANDBOOK FOR NGO SUCCESS WITH A FOCUS ON ANIMAL ADVOCACY by Janice Cox This handbook was commissioned by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (now World Animal Protection) when the organization was still built around member societies. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) was created in 1981 through the merger of the World Federation for the Protection of Animals (WFPA), founded in 1953, and the International Society for the Protection of Animals (ISPA), founded in 1959. Today, WSPA has 12 offices worldwide and over 640,000 supporters around the world. The WSPA Member Society Network is the world’s largest international federation of animal protection organisations, with over 650 societies in more than 140 countries. Member societies range from large international organisations to small specialist groups. WSPA believes that there is a need for close cooperation amongst animal protection groups – by working together and sharing knowledge and skills, greater and more sustainable progress can be made in animal welfare. Member societies work alone, in collaboration with each other or with WSPA on projects and campaigns. The Network also supports and develops emerging organisations in communities where there is great indifference to animal suffering. The Member Society Manual was created for your benefit, and includes guidance and advice on all major aspects of animal protection work. It also details many of the most effective and useful animal protection resource materials available. We hope that it will prove to be a helpful operating manual and reference source for WSPA member societies. D.Philips Marine Conservation Society ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Member Society Manual was collated by Janice H.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Animals in the Post-Anthropocene: Zoopedagogy As a Challenge to Logocentrism
    The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning Volume 24 2018-2019 Article 8 6-2019 Teaching Animals in the Post-Anthropocene: Zoopedagogy as a Challenge to Logocentrism Anastassiya Andrianova North Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/jaepl Part of the Creative Writing Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Educational Psychology Commons, English Language and Literature Commons, Instructional Media Design Commons, Liberal Studies Commons, Other Education Commons, Special Education and Teaching Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons Recommended Citation Andrianova, Anastassiya (2019) "Teaching Animals in the Post-Anthropocene: Zoopedagogy as a Challenge to Logocentrism," The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning: Vol. 24 , Article 8. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/jaepl/vol24/iss1/8 This Special Section is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/jaepl. JAEPL, Vol. 24, 2019 Teaching Animals in the Post-Anthropocene: Zoopedagogy as a Challenge to Logocentrism Anastassiya Andrianova Abstract: This essay examines a theory and practice of zoopedagogy that encourages exploring non-logocentric mode(l)s of communication while promoting environ- mentalism, critical thinking, and empathy. ‘Do you really believe, Mother, that poetry classes are going to close down the slaughterhouses?’ ‘No.’ ‘Then why do it? You said you were tired of clever talk about animals, proving by syllogism that they do or do not have souls.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare Law - 2018
    ANIMAL WELFARE LAW - 2018 Delcianna J. Winders, Dr. Heather Rally, Donald C. Baur Vermont Law School, Summer Session Term 3 July 9 – 19, 2018 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm SYLLABUS Required Text: Animal Rights Current Debates and New Directions (AR) (Cass R. Sunstein & Martha C. Nussbaum, eds., 2005) Supplemental Materials are available online and by request at the Bookstore Recommended Reading: On reserve in Library or URLs* Office Hours: 4:30-5:30 p.m., Mondays - Thursdays Exam: Open-book, take-home, anonymous grading, due 3:00 pm, July 21 Required Reading: Advance reading required for first class Week One: July 9 - 12 CLASS I: Monday, July 9: Course Introduction: Overview of the “Animal Condition” Required Reading: Baker, Sandra, Russ Cain, Freya van Kesteren, Zinta A. Zommers, Neil D’Cruze, Fraser, David. Animal ethics and animal behavior science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 65(1999). 171–189. Broom, Donald M. (2016) Considering animals’ feelings: Précis of Sentience and animal welfare (Broom 2014). Animal Sentience 5(1). Rollins, Bernard & Michael D. H. Rollin. Dogmatisms and Catechisms — Ethics and Companion Animals. Anthrozoos. 14.1. (2001). Bekoff, Marc & Daniel Ramp. Brown, Culum (2015). Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics. Animal Cognition. January 2015, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–17. Degrazia, David. On the ethics of animal research. Principles of healthcare ethics, Second Ed. 2007. P. 689 – 695. Recommended Reading: Donald R. Griffin, Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Victoria Braithwaite, Do Fish Feel Pain? Jonathan Balcombe, Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good. Marc Bekoff, The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy—and Why They Matter.
    [Show full text]