Search Results

The author uses chapter 12 as a jumping off point to talk about deaf education in general. The chapter opens with the value of Deaf educators in the deaf classroom, and argues that deaf education is minority education and should be afforded the same attention. The author urges that cultural education be included, and laments the dominance of medical procedures that threaten Deaf culture. The deaf child in a hearing world needs a safe environment in which to develop a healthy identity that will allow for a strong education and the ability to find a satisfying, productive place in the worlds they must straddle.

In this chapter, we expand upon Seymour Papert’s notion of “learning culture”. Specifically, we describe how the traditional expert-novice relationship between parents and children has changed over the last decade with children taking the role of an expert when it comes to technology. We propose that successful participation in 21st century for children starts with collaborative intergenerational experiences at home around technology, and video gaming in particular is a promising context for parents and children to work as partners and develop the dispositions that can be “transfer” to other contexts (e.g. workplace).

This chapter, by way of introduction, explores the life and work of Badius, drawing on judgements by his contemporaries and posterity. It introduces Badius via perspectives on the various roles he played throughout his career in the learned culture of the Renaissance: poet, schoolmaster, commentator, editor, scholar-printer. His biography is presented in the context of the groups and networks with which he identified, both secular humanist and religious, in the Low Countries, Italy, Germany, England and France. Educated by the Ghent Common Life Brethren, in the early part of his career he worked in Lyon for the press of Johann Trechsel, and belonged to a group of northern European humanists who circulated and published devotional poetry. He became known as an editor, grammarian and writer of commentaries, and established his own press in 1503 in Paris, where he associated with the best known humanist scholars of the day: Robert Gaguin, Lefèvre d’Etaples, Guillaume Budé, Erasmus.

This chapter assesses whether Byzantium was an empire. The characteristics of empires, once they have come into existence by the conquest of territory and established a unified central administrative system, have been expressed by one scholar as consisting of their capacity to administer and exploit diversity; the existence of a transportation system designed to serve the imperial center militarily and economically and of systems of communication allowing administration of the subject areas from the center; the assertion of a monopoly of force within their territories; and an “imperial project” that imposed some type of unity throughout the system. One might add to this list the existence of a legal framework. Byzantium had all of these, even though it grew out of an earlier imperial system, and its territorial extent varied greatly over time. It also demonstrated a remarkable determination to maintain itself, through the continuity of imperial office and ideology, sustained by a learned culture, access to which the emperors themselves sought to control. It maintained this symbolic continuity even in the face of the constant instability of the throne itself. The chapter then addresses how the consideration of Byzantium as an empire has been complicated by the model of a “Byzantine commonwealth,” put forward by Dimitri Obolensky in his well-known book published with that title in 1971.