JUVENAGOGY

DISSERTATION on JUVENAGOGY: An Interdependent Paradigm for Adolescent Education

Statement on Scientific Knowledge

The central aim of this dissertation was to contribute new scientific knowledge to the field of education. Within the philosophy of science, a contribution rises to the level of scientific knowledge when it provides a coherent explanatory framework, resolves persistent anomalies, aligns with empirical evidence, and generates new lines of inquiry (Kuhn, 2012; Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Juvenagogy meets these criteria.

First, Juvenagogy resolves long-standing anomalies in adolescent education that existing paradigms fail to explain adequately. Pedagogical models cannot account for widespread disengagement under increased control, and andragogical models overestimate adolescents' readiness for autonomous learning (Kirschner et al., 2020; Merrill, 2020). Constructivist approaches acknowledge collaboration but insufficiently explain its instability. Juvenagogy resolves these contradictions by reconceptualizing adolescence as a developmental condition of interdependence, grounded in social neuroscience and motivational science (Blakemore & Mills, 2023; Telzer, 2021).
Second, Juvenagogy advances scientific knowledge by integrating previously siloed domains-developmental neuroscience, social interdependence theory, evolutionary game theory, and multilevel measurement-into a unified explanatory system. This integration enhances explanatory adequacy by linking learning processes, classroom climate, behavior patterns, and empirical validation within a single paradigm (Johnson & Johnson, 2020; Woolley et al., 2021).
Third, Juvenagogy contributes epistemically by legitimizing group-level learning as a primary object of scientific inquiry. Traditional educational research has privileged individual cognition while under-theorizing collective outcomes. By foregrounding shared variance and ICC as substantive indicators, Juvenagogy aligns learning theory with measurement science (Hedges & Hedberg, 2019; Raudenbush et al., 2020). Fourth, Juvenagogy generates new predictive insights. It explains why equitable and cooperative outcomes emerge under dove-dominant climates and why dominance and disengagement stabilize under hawk-dominant incentives. These predictions are empirically testable and extend beyond descriptive accounts to explanatory and design-oriented science.
Finally, Juvenagogy reframes ethical responsibility in education. By locating learning outcomes in system design rather than individual compliance, it challenges deficit narratives and aligns scientific explanation with human development and equity (Ladson-Billings, 2021). In doing so, it advances not only what is known about adolescent learning, but how educational science itself ought to proceed. Thus, Juvenagogy represents a paradigm-level contribution to scientific knowledge in education-one that redefines adolescence as a distinct learning epoch and provides durable conceptual infrastructure for future research and reform.