Personally oriented learning paradigm in sports didactics. Humanitarian-personal paradigm. Basic pedagogical paradigms of the 21st century
Basic pedagogical paradigms of the 21st century
Definition of a Paradigm
A paradigm is an initial conceptual scheme, a model for posing problems and their solutions, and research methods that prevailed during a certain historical period in science. This is its original classical understanding. We will be interested in its two facets, which for the convenience of the reader are best expressed in two compact definitions.
A paradigm is a leading conceptual idea that determines the direction and nature of future transformations. In one of the dictionaries we read: a change in the educational paradigm - a change in the education system. Another definition is a theory that expresses important, essential features of reality.
The discussion that has unfolded today around the reform of the Russian school reflects the clash of four pedagogical paradigms:
Cognitive-informational (in the usual perception better known as knowledge, although this is not entirely accurate);
Personal;
Cultural;
Competent.
Before characterizing each of them, let us once again look at the definitions and pay attention to two important circumstances.
Firstly, as is clear from the above definitions, each of the paradigms, as they say today, correctly “captures” only part of reality. Even if it’s significant, it’s only a part! And a part can never replace the whole.
Secondly, any pedagogical paradigm inevitably fixes the dominant ideas about what is considered the main outcome and result of education. Based on this leading conceptual idea, the direction and content of future transformations are determined.
Cognitive-information paradigm comes from stable ideas about need for transfer to kid maximum quantity of all the knowledge, skills and abilities accumulated by humanity. Interprets the direction of the educational process in a very specific way, orienting teachers towards subject programs, fixed, assessable, results, selective selection of promising children with their subsequent in-depth training. The desires and needs of the child’s personality are, as a rule, not taken into account here.
Personal paradigm. The center of gravity is transferred from intellectual to emotional and social development of the child. In teams that adhere to this pedagogical paradigm, students are carefully observed and their personal growth and development discussed, and much attention is paid to the interests and problems of students. Teachers spend a lot of effort on selection of methods and setting goals, which they try to adapt to the individual development of each child. Comparative analysis of the student's success in the light of his previous achievements. Education in such a pedagogical paradigm gains wider base. The student is seen as personality, which itself can choose such learning path who will help her achieve the best results. Often borders educational subjects are blurred, training is carried out across areas of knowledge, an attempt is made to connect various areas of knowledge and real practice. The results of such attempts: projective learning, thematic training, interest training. Educational material is planned and presented in such a way as to help the child as much as possible. interact more effectively with the outside world walls of the school. Student choice any specializations– humanitarian or technical – postponed, until he himself understands what attracts him more. With this approach, the norms and requirements for students do not can be tough fixed.
Concept of education. Education as a multidimensional phenomenon. Education system in Russia. Problems of Russia's entry into the Bologna process. Competence-based approach.
In the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education,” education is understood as “a purposeful process of education and training in the interests of an individual, society, and the state, accompanied by a statement of the achievement by a citizen (student) of educational levels (educational qualifications) established by the state.” Under education we understand the process of a person’s assimilation of sociocultural experience through active interaction with the bearers of this experience. Education is not only a means of transmitting culture, but also itself forms a new culture and develops society. Active interaction implies not only assimilation, but also influence on this experience, one’s own contribution to its formation and transmission to subsequent generations. This is where human subjectivity manifests itself. Analyzing the use of the term “education” E.N. Gusinsky speaks of “the following main commonly used meanings of this word:
· education as a result, as a property of the individual, a system of ideas and concepts located in
· the subjective space of the human psyche and guiding his behavior;
· education as a process of introducing the individual to culture, the formation and development of education as the property of the individual, on the one hand, and the entire cultural environment, on the other;
· education as a special social institution (education system), one of the components of the cultural environment of the individual, developing and applying in practice a system of measures that organize and direct education as a process of introducing the individual to culture.”
EDUCATION - the process of a person’s assimilation of sociocultural experience:
– education is continuous, controlled and spontaneous;
– education has no age limits, but has age-related characteristics;
– education is a mutual process, i.e. conditioned by the characteristics and activity of both the student and the teacher.
Since the 60s, the education system in Russia has undergone changes towards a greater humanistic orientation, and then towards an orientation towards external requirements, such as the labor market, socio-economic conditions, etc. We are talking about the evolution of education from the classical, cognitively oriented, to the personality-oriented, and then to the competency-oriented paradigm.
Cognitively oriented paradigm
The main goals: to give the child knowledge, skills and abilities and ensure his socialization (preparation to perform basic social functions, adaptation to the requirements of society, primary vocational training, etc.).
Values: normativity (compliance with a given standard), controllability (obedience, discipline), homogeneity (sameness).
The general strategy is a strategy of formation, active intervention in the life of a child, disregard for its internal laws. The content and process of education are not directly related to the child, are not related to his real current interests and needs, and are not his personal choice.
The main active force is teaching, i.e. the activity of the teacher who leads the student. The student’s task is to keep up with the teacher (hence the word “progress”), for which it is necessary to adapt to the pace, individual characteristics and current state of the teacher
The main form of presentation of the material being studied is verbal explanation, less often - demonstration.
Rigid fixation of the sharply asymmetrical functions of teacher and student. Power is concentrated in the hands of the teacher, who plays the roles of instructor, leader, organizer, judge, and controller.
Person-centered paradigm
The main mission of education: providing conditions for self-determination and self-realization of the individual. The main goal: to promote personal growth (of all participants in the educational process, including the child).
Strategy - a strategy for helping, supporting and respecting the child
The main active force is teaching, i.e. activity of the students themselves.
The main way of learning is through personal experience, as a result of searching, experimenting, and testing hypotheses. Knowledge appears in a child as answers to his own questions - and therefore knowledge is individual and valuable for the person himself.
The teacher and student cooperate, jointly carry out certain activities aimed at a common goal - the development and personal growth of each. In order for these relationships to form, three basic conditions for personal growth are important - congruence, acceptance of the child and empathy. Accordingly, readiness for teaching activity is not so much possession of knowledge and techniques as personal maturity
Domestic personality paradigms.
Humanistic theories
Humanistic theories of personality were born in opposition to psychoanalysis. The main ideas that unite them: the individual is always active, strives for respect and self-esteem, mutual understanding and cooperation, and not confrontation, and always has freedom of choice.
Self-concept of C. Rogers
The main component of personality, according to K. Rogers, is its self-concept. A person behaves in accordance with his ideas about himself.
Existential personality theory
Viktor Frankl, the founder of the existential direction of humanistic psychology, argued: if there is “depth psychology,” there must also be “apex psychology.”
V. Frankl sees such a peak in meaning of life.
The main point of the theory is that the presence meaning of life increases the survival and effectiveness of the individual. A person is able to endure hardships and overcome a lot if he has a real, meaningful goal in life.
Failure to satisfy the need for meaning in life leads to existential frustration and, as a result, to neuroticism, illness, injury and even mortality.
Abraham Maslow's self-actualization theory
Self-actualization theory (A. Maslow) is one of the most popular theories in this area. Its main provisions boil down to the following postulates:
· The individual does not strive to reduce tension in interaction with society, but looking for tension.
· The personality is not hostile to society, but strives for contact.
· Personal needs are dynamic: a satisfied need ceases to be a motivator for activity.
· Personal needs are hierarchized. There are five levels of needs:
o Physiological needs of the body (sleep, food, sex).
o Need for security.
o Need for love and affection. This is a need for the individual, not the body.
o The need for recognition, respect and self-esteem. This is already a need for a member of society.
o The highest level of needs (which, according to the author, is inherent in only 3% of people) is the need for self-realization and self-actualization. This is the need to fully realize oneself in a given interaction, society and live up to one’s potential.
Domestic theories of personality are based on general methodological postulates:
The biological and social in personality are inseparable and constitute a unity. Every biological act has a social component.
The personality is active. This is not a biorobot whose behavior is controlled by environmental stimuli. The personality itself determines its development environment, which then shapes it.
The approach of K.K. Platonov.
He identifies the following personality substructures:
2. Substructure of forms of reflection (features of thinking, features of memory, emotional sphere, etc.).
3. Substructure of social experience (knowledge, abilities, skills, habits). Tell me what you know and I will tell you who you are! Habit is second nature.
4. Biological substructure (sex and age differences, temperament). A.N. Leontiev's approach.
A.N. Leontiev considered personality as a system of activities, the core of which is the motivational-need (semantic) sphere. Personality is formed in activity. Personality manifests itself in activity.
The personal approach in education, proclaimed as the leading trend of modern pedagogical theory and practice, does not have an unambiguous understanding in today’s pedagogical consciousness (E.V. Bondarevskaya, V.V. Gorshkova, V.I. Ginetsinsky, K.V. Davydov, V.S. Ilyin, M. V. Clarin, I. A. Kolesnikova, L. I. Novikova, V. I. Slobodchikov, A. P. Tryapitsyna, G. A. Tsukerman, L. Anderson, V. Bell, P. Brendwein, R. Driver, J. Naisbitt, M. Polanyi, J. Schwab, etc.). Therefore, there is every reason to speak about the multiplicity of concepts personality-oriented education. Let us highlight some of the most common interpretations of this phenomenon.
1. The personal approach in education at the level of ordinary, most mass pedagogical consciousness is understood as an ethical and humanistic principle of communication between a teacher and students. Teachers as classics of pedagogical thought were called to humanism, to Acceptance of the child as an individual - J..-J.. Rousseau, L.N. Tolstoy, M. Montesori and others, as well as modern innovative teachers who gave this principle the form of the so-called pedagogy of cooperation.
2. The personal approach is considered as the principle of synthesis of directions of pedagogical activity around its main goal - the individual. Everything that happens in the pedagogical process is pedagogical only to the extent that it works towards this goal.
3. The personal approach is interpreted as an explanatory Principle that reveals the mechanism of personal developments in the pedagogical process. The meaning of this principle is that no
changes in human life cannot be explained without understanding their place and role in the self-realization of the individual.
4. This approach is interpreted as the principle of individual freedom in the educational process in the sense of choosing priorities, educational “routes”, forming one’s own, personal perception of the content being studied (personal experience).
5. For a long time there was an understanding of the individual in education as a certain standard, a model of the “new man”. It was about educating a personality “with given properties.” This is how the personal approach was interpreted in Soviet pedagogy.
6. The personal approach is interpreted as the priority of individuality in education in the sense of an alternative to collective-leveling education.
7. Another meaning of the concept “personal approach” is associated with the idea of the integrity of the pedagogical process. Focus on the individual makes it possible to overcome summation and functionalism in building an educational system.
8. Finally, the personal approach - this meaning of this category will be discussed further in our monograph - can be considered as the construction of a special kind of pedagogical process (with specific goals, content, technologies), which is focused on the development and self-development of the individual’s own personal properties.
Behind each of these interpretations there is a certain model of pedagogical activity, which is justified and effective in its own way in a given sociocultural situation. Therefore, probably, the personal approach, like personality itself, is a complex, elusive subject of many sciences, and cannot be reduced to one single way of understanding it. As a result, what is needed is not a competition of ideas, but a different methodology focused on polyparadigmatic vision of the problem, on the multidimensional space of ideas of personality-oriented education.
Polyparadigmism does not exclude the creation of specific concepts of education that develop certain aspects of this problem.
The idea of a plurality of entities, beingnesses, cultures and ways of personality should act as a kind of integrator of this space. Polyparadigmism in this case means the researcher’s openness to all sorts of new visions of the problem.
personalities in education. It is important only for all variants and interpretations of this approach to preserve its essential attitude, its main criterion, which consists in demand personal (integral, free) manifestation of a person’s life, ideally in all situations of the educational process.
What exactly is required in these situations (personally oriented!)? In the most general form - a non-trivial, non-functional human existence. The educational process is filled with such tasks and activities, the implementation of which is impossible without the actualization of holistic, life-semantic functions of a person.
The humanistic tradition - the desire for the elevation of man, the most complete embodiment of the human essence in him - would be unfair to consider a phenomenon of pedagogical thought only of our time. In fact, even in the darkest periods of human history, pedagogy was one of the spheres of knowledge and practice in which, despite the confrontation between various scientific schools, and more often - the actual pedagogical and state-doctrinal principles, the humanistic ideal of education, so characteristic of genuine pedagogy, did not fade away.
But since the authority of humanism has always been high in politics, ideology, and in any spheres of practical activity, and humanistic slogans were mercilessly exploited for various opportunistic purposes, the need arose not only to once again declare the “humanism” of the next “approach” , but also to thoroughly understand the pedagogical nature of this phenomenon and formulate not everyday intuitive, but scientific criteria for the humanization of education. To do this, it is necessary to overcome the syndrome of the “uniqueness” of our pedagogical ideas as “revolutionary”, “the only true”, etc. and turn to the origins of humanism in the works of thinkers of the past.
The personal approach in education is continuously connected with the humanistic tradition in pedagogy, which is rooted in the deep origins of human culture. In the relevant works, they usually refer to Protagoras (“the measure of all things is man”), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and later Roman thinkers - Plutarch, Seneca and others. The rise of humanism is associated with the overcoming of the religious-canonical and totalitarian systems of the Middle Ages, when an extraordinary rise of the human spirit occurred, which marked the Renaissance. In this regard, usually
the names of Thomas More, Tommaso Campanella, Cyrano de Bergerac, Etienne Cabet, Gilbert X. Chesterton, Francois Rabelais, Jan Comenius and others are mentioned. Later, representatives of the new time - Michel Montaigne, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Leo Tolstoy - began to be included in this galaxy.
However, another tradition is no less old, when historians who consider themselves “Marxists,” when speaking about these thinkers, necessarily sought to emphasize their “historical limitations,” linking this with their lack of a historical-formational view, “class approach,” etc. n. It seems that such assessments are nonsense, since the basis for them was, as a rule, the discrepancy between the judgments of the classics about man and the goals of education with generally accepted ideological guidelines.
There is every reason to believe that our views turned out to be “historically limited” rather than the views of humanists, who truly do not know historical and temporal boundaries. Therefore, it makes sense to think once again about the words of Thomas More about the “supreme duty of philanthropy and benevolence,” which “never takes away our benefit to the extent that it returns it,” 1 so that our own dogmatism does not make us even “haughtier and more self-confident.” 2.
The humanistic aspect of the works of the great Ya. A. Comenius still awaits a holistic reading. “A comprehensive culture of the spirit requires that all people... be taught to wisely resolve the affairs of earthly life so that, as far as possible, everything in it is reliable; learned to follow the path of unanimity (and not like-mindedness! - V.S.), so that they could not disagree with each other to their detriment, either on earthly or on eternal paths, and were able to bring others who disagree to agreement; and, finally, they were filled with zeal and desire to ensure that deeds and actions were in the greatest harmony with each other... Everyone who was born as a human... strives to exist meaningfully, i.e. to desire and choose what is understood as good..." 3
1 Mor T. A golden book, as useful as it is funny, about the best structure of the state and about the new island of Utopia // Foreign fiction of past centuries. M., 1989. P. 86.
2 Montaigne M. About the art of living with dignity. M., 1975. P. 63.
3 Kamensky Ya.A. General Council for the Correction of Human Affairs. IV Pampedia // Komensky J.A., Locke J., Rousseau J.-J., Pestalozzi I.G. Pedagogical heritage. M., 1989. pp. 107-137.
The idea that the purpose of education not only stems from a “social order” limited by the historical framework, but is also a consequence of knowledge of the essence of man, develops in the works of subsequent European humanists and educators. “The purpose of education,” as defined by I. G. Pestalozzi, “is that a person himself rises to a sense of the inner dignity of his nature” 1.
In Russian pedagogy, the humanistic tradition is set out in the works of representatives of almost all historical eras. “What is a person? - asks Vladimir Monomakh in his famous “Teaching”. “How diverse are human faces... but each has its own facial appearance” 2.
Without stopping at the classic works of K.D. Ushinsky, L.N. Tolstoy and later - S.T. Shatsky, V.A. Sukhomlinsky, we note several ideas of P.F. that are interesting for today’s pedagogical and political discussions. Kaptereva. The school, in his opinion, will not fulfill its humanistic function without adequate transformation of the entire social environment. “In a society that is uncultured, poor in intellectual interests, does not value knowledge, and economically insolvent... the student will value school science low and treat it with indifference, or even with a tinge of contempt” 3 .
As P.F. believed Kapterev, truly scientific pedagogy cannot be a servant of the state-political system, but acts as a defender of human interests. This is the social function of this sphere of science and practice. “There is a difference in views on Education, state and pedagogical. When taking care of education, the state has in mind the citizens of a certain state (or the socio-political system that it is called upon to protect! - V.S.), and pedagogy - first of all, the citizens of the world, i.e. people and their overall humanitarian development. Pedagogical work is a matter of conscience, the versatile spiritual enrichment of the individual, and the state monitors and can only monitor the external order... State pedagogy, which is strong in its position, considers it possible for itself to create educational work independently of those living forces
1 Pestalozzi I.G. What does the method give to the mind and heart? // Izbr. ped. cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1981. T. 2. P. 82.
2 Teachings Vladimir Monomakh // Russian literature of the XI-XVIII centuries. M., 1988. P. 49.
3 Kapterev P.F.
who would lead it much better if they were called to participate in it independently” 1 .
And one more of his remarkable statements: “Society, understood as an association of parents, is interested, first of all, not in state plans for education... but in its children, their development, their health, their cheerful and cheerful mood... Therefore, society is a protector general humane education of children” 2, while the state or any other social transpersonal-role mechanism is interested in functional, specialized education, for which a person is only a conductor of certain functions.
Trying to act towards the humanization of social reality according to a scheme that excludes any doubts, in the recent past we took as a basis one aspect of human existence, for example, economic, class, ideological, forgetting the position of the same K. Marx about the essence of man as “the totality of all social relations" and the variety of ways of its social progress. An attempt to take a certain “only true” model as the basis for education is inhumane, no matter how attractive it may be. Here it is appropriate to recall J.-J. Rousseau: “Since the opposite of every false position is truth, the number of truths is as inexhaustible as the number of errors” 3. This idea is expressed even more clearly in the famous Hegelian aphorism: “The tragedy of history consists not in the struggle of truth against lies, but in the struggle of many truths.”
Without exploring the humanistic tradition, the “single tree” in pedagogy, we risk not seeing its qualitatively new development at the end of our century.
The synthesis of different interpretations of the personal approach can precisely provide a “breakthrough” to qualitatively new systems and technologies of education that harmoniously connect the functional and personal development of students.
The central concept of the concept of personality-oriented education is the concept of personality. Pedagogical theory eu-
1 Kapterev P.F. Didactic essays. Theory of education // Izbr. ped. Op. M., 1982. P. 429.
2 Ibid. P. 432.
3 Rousseau J.-J. Emile, or On Education // Rousseau J.-J. Pedagogical heritage. M., 1989. P. 252.
naturally strives to consider the personality as a pedagogical object, i.e. as a certain type of experience of an individual, which, like any other experience, can be mastered, formed, included in the content of education, and take on an activity-procedural form. At the same time, what is especially important for pedagogical theory personality education, the specifics of personal experience should be clarified in comparison with cognitive, procedural and other experiences. Only by understanding what the specific experience consists of be an individual, we can talk about the pedagogical conditions for the formation of this experience. In clarifying the nature and specific forms of existence of a person’s personal experience, pedagogy inevitably enters into an alliance with all sciences that study personality.
The logic of our further research was suggested by the task itself: if we are interested in the ways and means of updating and developing the personal experience of an individual, then it is necessary to find out the role, purpose, functions personal experience and personalities in general in the life of an individual. If we were talking about the formation of some kind of subject knowledge, then the question would arise about the role and function of this knowledge in solving any problems vital for the individual.
What are the functions of personality, personal experience in human life?
Phenomenon be an individual represents a special form of human social existence, his orientation in society, a kind of “adaptive” reaction to the specific conditions of human life. The relationship of the individual with society is historically changeable and dramatic. However, no matter how society “suppresses” the Personality, it is ultimately interested in its genesis.
Interest in education that recognizes the individual, his free creative development above political, ideological and other values, is natural for a society that is “tired” of the endless neglect of man, his today’s life for the sake of mythical models of the future, state, party and other ideals. The attitude towards the individual in educational practice corresponds to the dominant paradigm in society: the individual is still considered today as something that needs to be “activated”, “directed to the implementation of plans and programs.” The individual in education, as in society as a whole, still plays the role of a means. Subjectivity, meaning-making, criticality and other personal qualities are not yet considered as value in themselves. The priority is not the individual, but what
it can be obtained by performing certain social functions and implementing behavioral models.
The idea of personality-oriented education, like others, exists in modern pedagogical consciousness at two levels - ordinary and scientific. The first, without downplaying its importance, includes the widespread idea in the minds of teachers of the personal approach in education as an ethical and humanistic phenomenon, associated with the ideas of respect for the child’s personality, partnership, cooperation, and dialogue in education. As for the scientific idea of personality-oriented education, it has a different conceptual structure depending on the subject of which science this concept is considered.
The philosophy of education explores the approach through the categories of the subject, freedom, self-development, integrity, dialogue, and play as forms of personal self-expression. Personally oriented education from this point of view is opposed to the reduction of the whole person to individual “parts” of his being - pragmatism, materialism, functional development of personality traits that are significant for any utilitarian purposes (G.S. Batishchev, V.E. Kemerov, M. Polani, N.B. Sigov, V.N. Sherdakov, R. Evans).
From the standpoint of psychology, the concept of personality-oriented education is enriched with ideas about the functions of personality in human life, about the specific nature of the personal level of the human psyche, about the semantic sphere, reflection, experience and dialogue as mechanisms for the formation of personal experience (L.I. Antseferova, Gonzalez Rey, V. V. Davydov, G. A. Kovalev, A. V. Petrovsky, I. N. Semenov, V. I. Slobodchikov, S. Yu. Stepanov, V. V. Stolin, A. A. Tyukov, etc.).
In our study, the personal approach is considered within the framework of the subject of pedagogy through the categories of the purpose and content of education, teaching methods and the specific technologies included in them, teaching and learning activities, and criteria for the effectiveness of the educational process. The concept of personality-oriented education, revealing the new content of these categories, thereby sets the regulations for the transformation of pedagogical consciousness and practice.
The concept of student-centered education we are developing is based on fundamental research on
nature of pedagogical knowledge (V.V. Kraevsky), integrity of the educational process (B.S. Ilyin, I.Ya. Lerner, M.N. Skatkin), personal development functions of learning (N.A. Alekseev, E.V. Bondarevskaya, N. V. Bochkina, Z.I. Vasilyeva, V.V. Gorshkova, T.N. Malkova, A.P. Tryapitsyna), the specifics of pedagogical activity (V.N. Zagvyazinsky, I.A. Kolesnikova, V.A. Slastenin). We see the theoretical purpose of the concept of personality-oriented education in revealing the nature and conditions for the implementation of personal development functions of the educational process, which is inseparable from a deeper and more holistic understanding of its essence. The practical value of this concept lies in the development of regulations for the practice of education, which should be to a certain extent alternative to traditional education, which reduces personal development to the formation of cognitive-operational experience.
The starting point of the concept being developed is the idea of personality as a goal and a factor in the educational experience during training.
In the educational process, as is usually repeated in pedagogical treatises and explanatory notes to programs, the knowledge, skills, and personality of students are formed. However, a simple punctuation mark cannot separate such far-reaching aspects of the educational process. It is possible to assert that “personality is being formed” only with a large degree of convention, because it is being formed to the same extent as it is opposed to any “formation.” The personality principle in a child, emerging in early childhood, disrupts the linearity and programmability of the educational process, giving it the features of selectivity, self-development, integrity, and mediation. Education focused on the development of the individual achieves its goals to the extent that it creates a situation of demand for the individual and his powers of self-development. Domestic and foreign experience has repeatedly convinced that an attempt to form a personality according to an established model, passing students in “orderly rows” through the education system, can only produce educational and social surrogates.
Personality-oriented education is not the formation of a Personality with given properties, but the creation of conditions for the full manifestation and, accordingly, development of the personal functions of students. How to maintain the necessary measure, balance between socio-ethical necessity and freedom of Development, without which there can be no truly personal beginning in
a person, not to return to totalitarian “models of personality” or “free education” that have already shown their inconsistency? This question was one of the central ones in the course of our long-term research.
Based on domestic and foreign concepts of personality, we proceeded from the fact that the student’s own personal functions are “included” in the educational process in the case when cognitive orientation can no longer provide an adequate position of the student in the structure of the learning situation. Personal functions in this case are not its characterological qualities (the latter, except for some so-called universal ones, can and should be different for people), but those manifestations of a person that realize the phenomenon of “being a person.” The following functions are identified: selective (choice of values and lifestyle), mediating (in relation to external influences and internal impulses of behavior), critical (in relation to values and norms offered from outside), the function of volitional self-regulation in achieving goals, reflexive, meaning-creating, orienting (building a personal picture of the world - a system of meanings), functions of responsibility for decisions made, ensuring autonomy and stability of the inner world, creative transformation, self-realization (the desire for recognition of one’s image of “I” by others), ensuring the level of spirituality in accordance with claims (prevention of reduction life activity for utilitarian purposes).
The completeness of representation of these functions in the activities of subjects of the educational process is a measure of the fact that the educational process has reached a personal level of functioning. Knowledge of personal functions allows us to move on to one of the fundamental aspects of the concept of personality-oriented education - the question of the nature of that experience, the assimilation of which means, in the proper sense of the word, personality development. The presence of special personal experience in the structure of educational content is discussed in many didactic concepts. Yes, IL. Lerner and M.N. Skatkin talk about the experience of an emotional-value attitude towards the world; B.C. Lednev - about the experience of value-orientation activities. Another thing is that this aspect of the content of education turned out to be the least developed. Its procedural and methodological characteristics (technologies) are practically not justified.
Unlike cognitive experience, which is translated from an objective form into the form of joint activity of the teacher and students, through which it is assimilated, personal experience initially has no other form other than personal-semantic experience.
The personal side of any activity is its subjective beginning, the study of the situation in order to identify its meaning and need significance.
The activation of personal functions is ensured by such content that can shake the integrity of the personal worldview, the hierarchy of meanings, and status. There is a comparison of old and new meanings and their critical revision. The stimulus for this kind of activity can only be communication between subjects, mutually referential, mutually significant for each other.
Experience as a way of existence of personal experience also presupposes subject-subject forms of appropriation of this experience that are adequate to it: communication-dialogue, playful mental activity, reflection, meaning-creativity. An educational task is solved at a personal level when it is experienced as a life problem, which, in turn, mobilizes and accordingly develops powerful structures of the intellect. There is, however, no need to prove that the content of education, the way it is given, and the form of functioning in the real educational process in the form in which they exist today have little correspondence with the mechanisms of personal development. Therefore, the personal development function is more declared than actually implemented by the existing educational process.
Although the idea of the mechanisms of personal development plays an important role in the construction of personally developing components of educational content, it is not the only guideline in the selection and composition of such content. In accordance with the understanding of the subject of didactics (V.V. Kraevsky), another, no less significant regulator of the construction of content is the idea of \u200b\u200bthe purpose of education. Adopting the personal paradigm significantly changes the understanding of the goal phenomenon. Traditionally, it was presented as a certain model of personality, expressing the order of society and having the form of “standards” of education and behavior. Such an understanding of the goal, no matter how lofty it may be in content, contradicts the personal paradigm of education, since the personality inherently does not tolerate the initial predetermination.
The most perfect values of humanity must, as it were, be born anew in the experience of the individual, otherwise they cannot be adequately appropriated by him, i.e. gain personal meaning. The goals of activity, including educational ones, are secondary in relation to motivation, and therefore cannot be determined outside the motives and intentions of the individual himself.
To what extent can the student’s personality participate in determining the goals and content of his education? Obviously, in one in which the formation of the individual is assumed, and not some functional-activity components of the individual, the “standard” of which in each historical era is set by society. Personally, what is initially self-defined by a person is built as his own world. Therefore, the optimal education is one that presupposes the harmony of state standards and personal self-development. Departure from this harmony leads to the extremes of totalitarian statehood or paedocentrism in the education system.
The idea of the need to include in the content, in addition to the standard components given from the outside, also emotional, value-based, personal elements that are inseparable from the learning process with its inherent intersubjective communication, is already present in various concepts of education (B.S. Ilyin, M.S. Kagan, I.Ya. Lerner and others). Developing this position, we proceed from the following: the holistic content of education that actually appears to the subject consists of didactically processed socio-cultural experience that exists before and independently of the learning process, in the form of educational program materials (“educational standard”), and personal experience , acquired on the basis of subject-subject communication and the life situations caused by it, occurring in the form of experience, meaning-making, and self-development.
The personal component of the content of education cannot be presented in the usual program and instructional form. Personally oriented content can be specified only on the basis of situation models that actualize collisions in the educational process that require the manifestation of the student’s personal functions. This is a specific feature of personality-oriented content: it cannot be specified in isolation from the procedural form of its existence. Any value will have significance for the subjects of the educational process only through representation
its form as a collision task, requiring a comparison of this value with other values; in the form of a dialogue involving an exploration of meaning; through imitation of a life situation, which allows one to test this value in action and communication with other people, and compare it with other values.
The task of technologizing pedagogical activity, being complex in itself due to the well-known subject-subject nature of the Pedagogical process, becomes many times more complicated when it comes to the development of the personal function of the student. The experience available in theory and practice in creating technologies focused on the development of cognitive structures cannot be directly used in this case.
Logical-gnostic structures have an analogue in the objective world and can be modeled and mastered through appropriate objective activities. This explains the high efficiency of teaching technologies based on the concepts of the formation of mental actions (P.Ya. Galperin), “meaningful abstraction” (V.V. Davydov), etc. Education at the personal level is a semantic, subjective perception of reality, and no subject activity does not guarantee the formation of the “required” meaning. Therefore, it is possible to talk about technologies for influencing the individual only with a high degree of convention, implying that the individual always acts as an actor, an accomplice, and even the initiator of any process of his education.
The main procedural characteristic of personality-oriented education is the learning situation, which actualizes and makes the personal functions of students in demand. The construction of such a situation, as our research has shown, suggests the use of three basic technologies: presentation of elements of educational content in the form of multi-level personality-oriented tasks (“task approach technology”); mastering the content in the Conditions of Dialogue as a special didactic and communicative environment that provides subjective and semantic communication, reflection, and self-realization of the individual (“technology of educational dialogue”); imitation of social-role and spatio-temporal conditions that ensure the implementation of personal functions in conditions of internal conflict, collision, and competition (“imitation games technology”).
The task-dialogue-game triad forms the basic technological complex of personally oriented learning.
The research program on the problem of personality-oriented education included several areas:
Methodological regulations for constructing the theory and practice of personality-oriented education;
Historical background of the concept of student-centered learning;
International experience in building systems and technologies for personal development education, their comparative pedagogical analysis;
Sources and procedures of pedagogical goal setting in the conditions of personality-oriented educational systems;
Selection and composition of educational content from the perspective of a personal approach;
Technologies for personally oriented learning;
Training of teaching staff and heads of educational institutions for the implementation of a personal approach in teaching and management activities.
The specific development of the starting points of the concept of a personal approach in education outlined here is presented in subsequent chapters.
It can be assumed that the emergence of personality is associated with such a stage of human development when the “human world” cannot be reduced only to the objective, material-utilitarian sphere, when supra-objective activity takes on a special role in the structure of human existence - the search and formation of meanings of both individual actions and life activity in general.
The variety of personality functions 1 can be streamlined (conditionally, of course), reducing them to three basic ones. The first among these we presumably consider responsibility function as a fundamental personal characteristic. Responsibility for what? For all. And the higher the sphere of responsibility experienced by the individual, the more developed the personality is. Responsibility to whom? In front of everything and everyone. Moreover, this personal responsibility, in contrast to its various socially normalized manifestations, is truly moral in nature. We include in this area of personal functions the functions of moral choice, motivational justification of life activity, etc.
1 Serikov V.V. Personal approach in education: concept and technology. Volgograd, 1994. pp. 42-43.
Next comes the range of functions, which we conventionally defined as self-realization. These may include the functions of creativity, freedom, independence, competition with various life obstacles, development of individuality, ensuring a spiritual level of life, and its irreducibility to materialism, to everyday life.
And finally, the troupe reflexive functions personality, ensuring its meaning-seeking activity, the development of the image of “I”, and the autonomy of goal formation.
As is easy to see, these fundamental personal characteristics of a person also presuppose certain basic characteristics of pedagogical means that ensure their development. Thus, a situation that provides responsibility must have some contextuality in relation to the inner world of the individual; for self-realization it is necessary to create game conditions with its inherent freedom and competitiveness; the reflexive function is in demand and develops in conditions dialogue- interaction of the individual with the world of culture opening before him.
Let us turn to the current state of the theory of personality-oriented (personal development) education.
The subject area of this theory is the pedagogical process, which determines the formation of the individual’s own personal properties. A far from idle question arises: does this process really exist?
Of course, this process cannot be separated from others in its pure form, but there is no reason to doubt its objective existence. It must be said that pedagogical science and practice have long been engaged in, if you can call it that, “virtual realities”, i.e. by something that existed not in reality, but on paper, in reports, in the ideologized imagination of the authors. Such phenomena could include, say, “legal education”, or “economic”, or “rhetorical”, etc. As a rule, on the eve of the next inspection, demonstration events were held in each of these areas of education, stands were prepared, all kinds of plans, reports, etc. And even dissertations were written. However, did such upbringing really exist? Did the corresponding process take place in reality? One may doubt it.
And in this sense, the only pedagogical reality that does not raise the slightest doubt is the formation of a child
personality. This is truly an inexorable reality, which sometimes self-realizes contrary to our intentions and ongoing educational activities.
So, our first initial methodological position: the personal development pedagogical process - This is an objective pedagogical phenomenon that is organically integrated into all other pedagogical processes.
When developing the conceptual apparatus of the theory of personality-oriented education, we proceeded from the fact that traditional pedagogical concepts should develop - namely, develop, and not be replaced by other, more fashionable ones. The conceptual apparatus of related sciences that has flooded pedagogy (“socioculture”, “humanitarian system”, “pedagogical space”, “self-development”, etc.) undoubtedly reveals new facets of pedagogical reality, but they cannot satisfy the main expectations from pedagogical science, i.e. e. perform an organizing role in relation to the activities of the teacher. And no matter how far we penetrate into the “integrity” or “synergetics” of pedagogical phenomena, we will still have to return to the essential characteristics of pedagogical activity, revealed by the concepts purpose, content and method. Any methodological excursions are justified only to the extent that they develop our ideas about the target, content and procedural and methodological aspects of the pedagogical process. No matter how much we talk about “pedagogical interaction”, about the “space of culture”, subjectivity and self-development, the teacher must know target its activities, content of experience, which he will pass on to his students, have an idea of method (technology), with which this can be done.
The desire to artificially complicate the conceptual apparatus of pedagogy and give it a scientific similarity is completely unjustified. “There are no “simple” sciences. Each uses abstractions and accumulates a stock of its own concepts and categories, the meaning of which differs from that which the corresponding words may have in everyday language" 1 .
If we try to express the main idea of personality-oriented education through the pedagogical conceptual apparatus itself, then it is necessary first of all to present the goal of such education. This goal in this case does not specify a list of “social
1 Kraevsky V.V., Kutiev V. Pedagogical methodology: what are we arguing about? // Pedagogy. 1991. No. 7. P. 34.
useful” personality traits, but focuses on the fact of the individual’s own personal development. The goal is the personality, not what can be obtained from it.
In accordance with this, the content of education includes a new type of experience - the experience of being an individual, personal experience. This is an experience of supplementing personal functions, the content of which can be delivered in different ways, depending on what idea the designer of such education has about the nature of personality. In its most general form, it is the experience of meaningful and reflective behavior in the world. “The specificity of personal experience as a component in the content of education is that it simultaneously has both substantive (“building material” of personal functions, properties of the individual) and procedural (change of experiences, subjective activity of the student) aspects. Personal experience is relatively autonomous in relation to the subject content of academic disciplines. It is characterized by specific methods of development, which involve the subject’s entry into a personal developmental educational situation, and a meaning-forming role in relation to other components of the content of education” 1 .
Personal experience as a component of the content of education is marked by its originality. It cannot be set using traditional software and methodological tools, but exists only in the form of an intersubjective one. The composition and structure of this experience are not dictated entirely by the material of the subject being studied, but are determined by internal conflicts in the personal development of the subjects of the educational process. Mastery of this experience is expressed not in subject knowledge and skills, but in the form of personal worldview dispositions, value orientations, and to a certain extent, life meanings that have been hard-earned by the individual, which have become the integral essence of his self-concept. Personal experience, unlike cognitive, operational, etc., is not simply mediated by another person (the personality of the teacher), but is integrated and determined by the interaction of personalities. This, one might say, is the experience of presenting oneself in another and including the other in one’s I-being. Personal experience acts for the emerging subject as a structure of life meanings, a kind of rules for the self-organization of one’s inner world.
1 Zelentsova A.V. Personal experience in the structure of educational content (theoretical aspect): Author's abstract. ...cand. ped. Sci. Volgograd, 1996. P. 7.
Finally, the question arises about the technologies of pedagogical activity that ensure the formation of the individual’s personal functions. Personal development, like any mental development (it should, however, be noted that personal development is not entirely limited to the field of psychology), presupposes the demand for and manifestation of what is developing, i.e. personality. The essence of the pedagogical technology itself in this case is to ensure the creation of situations that ensure this demand for a person’s personal manifestations. Many studies are devoted to the problems of the methodology for searching for personally oriented educational technologies and the development of specific techniques for creating personal developmental educational and educational situations (S.V. Belova, V.I. Danilchuk, E.A. Kryukova, V.V. Zaitsev, T.I. Chechet, B.B. Yarmakhov, etc.).
The basis of traditional educational technologies is the inclusion of the student in a specific subject activity, characterized by special properties and internal organization, thanks to which the subject performing it masters a predetermined experience. Such a subject-based, activity-based approach to the development of educational technologies, repeatedly tested in practice, which has proven itself well in the design of cognitive aspects of education, in terms of personality-oriented education turned out to be not entirely acceptable, since in this case we were talking about the formation not subject-cognitive, but semantic relations of the subject. It is impossible to create, program meaning in advance, before the problem enters the real semantic field of the subject. Pedagogy, accustomed to “teaching,” “developing,” “involving,” “stimulating,” here encounters the limitations of its ability to “influence” an individual.
This powerlessness of practical pedagogy is actually its strength. The inability to manipulate a person is the basis of culture, of human civilization. Such a constantly available, at least potentially, opportunity to influence the mental processes of the student, to explicate them, to channel them into the “required” channel is a characteristic feature of “knowledge-based” pedagogy. The essence of personality-oriented pedagogy is to create conditions, chance, space for choice and, consequently, for the manifestation and development of personality.
What are these conditions?
The first is an idea of the content of an individual’s personal development. Personal development is the development, first of all, of its attributive functions: selectivity, comprehension of the activity of arbitrariness, creativity, reflexivity, responsibility and economy. The concept of personal development should probably include the development of the content of its spiritual sphere - ideological, moral, aesthetic and other values in the form of motives, attitudes and abilities.
The sphere of personality development can apparently also include the activity-behavioral development of the individual - the formation of his habits, experience, style and manner of presenting his “I”. Finally, the concept of personal development also includes the formation of its social, communicative space - the sphere of relationships, circle of communication, and its own microsociety. Finally, the development of personality is the formation of its individuality.
The main factor of personal development is associated with the demand for the individual’s personality by society, the logic of activity, and self-design.
Transition to new personal paradigm - the leading trend of modern education and, in general, the pedagogical consciousness of society at the end of the 20th century. There is every reason to believe that knowledge and educational the paradigm that dominated education for many centuries has exhausted its possibilities. Firstly, the amount of knowledge even for the most general orientation in it has become almost incomprehensible! Secondly, it became clear that the function of education is far from being limited to saturating a person with knowledge. Life practice has more than once convincingly shown that the breadth and encyclopedia of knowledge is amazingly easy to coexist with a person’s lack of education in the strictly human aspect. This, of course, is not about the “harm” of knowledge, but about the limitations of the knowledge paradigm as a style of thinking. Knowledge, as such, is certainly a universal criterion of education, since even the personal experience of an individual and other products of his reflection ultimately have the form of knowledge, only, perhaps, with slightly different properties.
The transition to a personal paradigm is a natural result of the development of human educational thinking: to replace superficial-subject world exploration is coming deep-semantic comprehension of the universe by man as a subject of cosmogenesis.
“Why do we need knowledge,” asks the famous teacher Sh. Amonashvili, “without personal passion, to do good and not evil for people, to share it with others, to bring relief to people?” 1 .
The rapid (almost catastrophic!) growth of knowledge has caused the rapid development of the methodology of educational projects. Hence - standardization, modularity, technologization of education! In this sense, knowledge pedagogy will always serve subject orientation and practical activities of a person. However, a paradigm shift in which knowledge was considered the only product of education is inevitable. Traditional pedagogy was focused not on the development of the subject of education, but on his achievement of a certain knowledge standard.
Knowledge in the structure of traditional education, as a rule, was abstracted from the sociocultural context in which it was acquired. To paraphrase the well-known Christian commandment, we can say that man does not live by knowledge alone. For example, getting acquainted with modern natural science, he must experience the dramatic fate of physics, molecular biology of the last century and other sciences. The collisions of their development are the collisions of mind and nature, spirit and inert matter, comprehension of general cosmic laws and the search for the meaning of their knowledge for man. Actually, it is not science that needs humanitarization, but people. In the hands of a technocrat, Dostoevsky will be an inert, soulless object.
The turn of education towards personality is due to the general crisis of technocratic civilization. The personal paradigm opposes centralism and uniformity in education; the extensive growth of the volume of knowledge and the reduction of the “space” of comprehension and reflection; giving the educational process external humanitarian forms without changing the essence of the activity of the subject of the teaching. The crisis of technocracy leads to an awareness of the initial value of education, which is the absolute value of the individual, regardless of its functional significance or compliance with any political or ideological model. The transition to a personal paradigm does not mean abandoning knowledge education. The latter only becomes part of the whole - the formation of the individual.
When building such an educational system, traditional system-technical methodology can no longer be applied.
1 Amonashvili Sh.A. Pedagogical Symphony: At 3 o'clock. Ekaterinburg, 1993. 4.2. P. 34.
The latter “proved to be incapable of solving the problem of configuring descriptions of various determinants of human behavior and its organization on various levels: cultural, value-based, professional, etc.” 1 .
This methodology was suitable for knowledge education, where the subject activity of the student was designed, leading to the assimilation of concepts, methods of activity, and creative experience in a certain subject area. In the process of personality formation, we are talking about the personal meaning of values. This meaning cannot be conveyed or learned. Moreover, no objective activity guarantees the formation of the meaning we desire. The nature of personality limits the possibility of influencing it from the outside. Hence the need for a different, humanitarian methodology of pedagogy, in which, as in any humanitarian field, the categories of authorship, uniqueness, subjectivity of participants in the educational process, dialogue of cultures, aesthetic integrity of the universe, and the play of the creative forces of a person cognizing and transforming the world are affirmed and implemented.
Supporters of the “purity of science”, the exclusion of “humanitarian” and “artistic” means from it, are to a certain extent right when they talk about the fact that science and art have different goals and means of reflecting reality. However, there is one essential detail in pedagogical knowledge: it is designed to equip practice with a holistic system of means of creating a person, and practice, by and large, is of equal importance to the way in which this means was obtained - through scientific research or artistic typification. It is indisputable that the most detailed systematic scientific descriptions of pedagogical projects do not make them more reproducible than, say, those phenomena that were revealed to us by “Emile, or On Education” by J.-J. Rousseau or “Pedagogical Poem” by A.S. Makarenko. This suggests that the traditional logical-scientific methodology of design in pedagogy has a peculiar incompleteness of description. But such a methodology is precisely adequate to the content of education, in which personal experience dominates over the knowledge component, which, as is known, corresponds to human nature.
Focus on the individual is a common feature of all educational projects of our time, but this does not prevent the existence of various concepts and models of personality-oriented education.
1 Aleksev N.A. Personality-centered learning: issues of theory and practice. Tyumen State University, 1997. P. 72.
education: from the everyday understanding of the personal approach as an ethical-humanistic principle (respect for the student) to all sorts of options for “education in the field of personality.”
The essence of the concept of personality-oriented education we propose can be represented by the following provisions.
2. Just as a person in the educational process acquires experience in using knowledge, ways solving cognitive and practical problems, creative experience, he must master and experience " be an individual", i.e. experience in performing specific personal functions (selectivity, reflection, meaning determination, self-realization, social responsibility, etc.). This personal “functioning” of the individual is not any objective activity and acts, rather, as some meta-activity, as a kind of internal plan for any other human activity.
Creation of conditions conducive to the development of the sphere of personal functions of the individual during the assimilation of any component of the content of education - this can be defined in the most general form target personality-oriented education.
Every education has its content. In what sense can we talk about the specific content of personality-oriented education if everything that a person masters must be included in the fund of his personality? At the same time, the specific “building material” of an individual’s own personal properties are his experiences and mental processes, comparing them with the values of other people, creating in educational communication a kind of mental space, an intersubjective search for meaning, imitation of personally significant problems and conflicts in game form, i.e. in the form of “playing out” life dramas, which, as a rule, go far beyond the scope of the subject being studied and, due to this, approach the sphere of genuine significant for the individual.
Let us outline the specific (still hypothetical!) patterns of personality-oriented education in comparison with similar characteristics of traditional, knowledge-oriented education.
1. If, when designing traditional training, the subject of project activity is a fragment of the content of this training
knowledge and its activity-procedural support (in other words, specially structured educational material and the method of assimilation constituted the essence of educational technology in the broad sense of the word), then with personality-oriented education the element of design becomes not a fragment of material, but event in a person's life, giving her a holistic life experience in which knowledge is part of it.
2. Learning design becomes joint activities teacher and student. Dialogue appears here, therefore, not as a planned situation in an educational lesson, but as a way of life of subjects in education.
3. The fundamental line between the content and procedural aspects of learning is erased: process(dialogue, search, game) becomes a source of personal experience.
4. Education is losing its traditional features of artificiality and external regulation and is approaching natural human activity.
5. Accordingly, the interaction of participants in educational activities loses formality and functionalism and acquires the features of interpersonal, intersubjective communication. Because of this, the teacher will be in demand as an individual, and not as a functionary, since his inner personal world becomes part of the content of education.
6. The text as a fragment of the acquired culture is assimilated through the context (it is initially focused on the actualization of personal meanings, and not on superficial reproduction); the development of “I” goes through “one’s other”, through dialogue; What is acquired is not a fragment of an integral life activity (knowledge and skills!), but this integrity itself, which presupposes at least an imitation-game reproduction of life roles and situations.
The personal paradigm does not directly influence the construction of the content and forms of learning. In this sense, this is a rather “delicate” pedagogical theory; it largely influences the internal organization of the subjects of the educational process and, to a lesser extent, the structure of the subject-content area of training. Likewise, physics as a science studies the objective fundamental properties of matter, and in this sense its content does not depend on the value consciousness of a person. Physics, as an academic subject, is part of culture and cannot be used outside of human meanings.
to promote the education of a person worthy of this great science. Formulas and laws may subsequently be forgotten by the student, but the experience of human quests and dramas, which the physics of the last century gave the world, is part of universal human culture, which should be included in the personal experience of every educated person. Physics, which develops personality, is, of course, not a body of knowledge and experience, but a certain creative situation in which it becomes clear not only What And Why a person needs, but also For what does he need it? What is the meaning of our expansion into nature? Where is the limit of what is permitted? What does man have to answer for as a subject of cosmogenesis?
The transition to a personal paradigm is thus associated with the solution of the most subtle didactic task of synthesizing knowledge-standardized and personality-variable components of education, with the construction of a new generation educational system.
The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in the development of the individual, that is, the problem of the factors (driving forces) of development and formation of the individual, is the most important problem of pedagogical science, both domestic and foreign. Historically, there have been two main approaches to the interpretation of these factors.
1) Idealist-preformist (preformism in Latin: prae forma, pre-created). The common thing that unites all of its supporters (theologians, philosophical theologians, biologizers, neo-athamists, neo-positivists, etc.) is the idea that human development? This is a spontaneous, uncontrollable process, conditioned by some internal “innate program” of personal and individual formation.
1a) Theological concept. The source of personal development is divine power.
1b) Biologization direction. The “program” of personal development has a biological basis and is directly related to the hereditary genotype of each person.
2) Materialistic. Proponents of this concept, without rejecting for the most part the influence of hereditary factors (biosociologizers), take into account to a greater extent the influence of external, social factors - environment and upbringing
2a) Sociologizing concept. Complete denial of heredity, environment and upbringing are the determining factors of development
2b) Biosociologizing concept - it is based on the idea that a person is a biological and social being, therefore he develops and is formed as a person under the influence of a whole set of factors, which include environment, upbringing, heredity and the individual’s own active activity (multifactor theory) .
15. The most important factors in the development and self-development of the individual
Domestic scientific pedagogy is based on a multifactorial theory, according to which a person develops and is formed as a person under the influence of the following factors:
I. heredity (biological factor)
III. education (social factors)
IV. human activity
I. Heredity is a set of natural properties of an organism that pass from generation to generation, the reproduction in descendants of biological similarities with their parents.
Heredity - the properties of an organism to repeat similar types of metabolism and individual development over a number of generations
The role of heredity in the social (personal) formation of a person is manifested in the following aspects:
1) By inheritance, in accordance with his biological nature (belonging to the genus homo sapiens), a person has the ability for social development - walking upright, mastering speech, developing thinking, self-awareness, creativity, work, etc. No other representative of the living world possesses this ability.
2) The carriers of heredity are genes; from parents to children, as a result of the implementation of their genetic program, reflecting one or another combination of parents’ genes, the following are transmitted: body features, constitution, hair color, eye color, skin type, etc. At the same time, genetic scientists have proven that social traits and qualities acquired by parents in the process of life are not fixed in the genetic apparatus and, accordingly, cannot be transmitted.
3) Hereditary include features of the human nervous system that determine the nature and course of mental processes; defects and deficiencies in the nervous activity of parents, including pathological diseases that cause mental disorders (schizophrenia) can be inherited and affect the processes of individual and spiritual formation of children. Blood diseases, diabetes mellitus, endocrine disorders (dwarfism, obesity), etc. are also hereditary. Alcoholism, drug addiction, sound stress (hard rock, noise), carcinogens, and harmful living and working conditions have a negative impact on the offspring. These fleeting effects on the apparatus of heredity lead to the destruction of genetic codes, to irreversible mental mutations that affect the personal formation of children.
4) The pedagogical aspect of a person’s hereditary nature on the process of his personal development is also expressed in the fact that children are inherited predispositions to this or that activity. These natural inclinations (good hearing, vocal abilities, phenomenal memory, the ability for poetic creativity) are a potential condition for the formation of abilities.
5) Biologically, a person has unlimited opportunities for development, but uses only 10-15% of his personal potential.
6) The biological in human development can manifest itself in the most unexpected way (the psychology of the beautiful and the ugly), stimulating or inhibiting a person’s personal growth.
In general, it should be noted that a person’s heredity acts as a potential prerequisite for his subsequent (successful or unsuccessful) social development.
II. The environment is the natural, socio-economic, material and living conditions of the life of the human community and each person.
Part of the environment are:
Is the environment geographical? a certain territorial landscape, climate, flora and fauna, natural conditions, environmental conditions;
Is the environment social? the social material and spiritual conditions surrounding a person’s existence, formation and activity.
The social environment is distinguished:
Distant (media): social relations and institutions, etc., which together form the personality type of a certain country and a certain era.
Neighborhood: the socio-cultural conditions of the region, family, and immediate environment shape personal qualities, values and orientations, motives and interests.
Microenvironment (apartment, magnetic influences, microwaves)? influence the development of nervous tissues and the brain.
The holistic influence of the environment is expressed in the following:
1) the environment is the source and main condition for the socialization of a growing personality (introducing the child to the norms and requirements of social life).
2) the environment does not fundamentally influence the development of the individual, since it is a rather passive factor (for example, 2 different children in the same family), since the influence of the environment is determined by the attitude of the person and depends on his needs, interests, age and individual characteristics.
3) the environment is a spontaneous, unintentional factor in the formation of personality, since it can have both positive and negative influence on it
III) Education is considered to be the determining factor in the formation of personality, because it corrects and directs the influence of all other factors and is the main means of ensuring full personal development and formation of a person.
Upbringing:
1) uses positive environmental influences and organizes the child’s life activities accordingly (creating a nurturing environment)
2) neutralizes and transforms negative environmental influences
3) identifies the inclinations and inclinations of a growing personality and ensures their development in accordance with the individual characteristics of the person.
4) influences the natural qualities of the individual, introducing new content into them, adapting them to specific living conditions (filling gaps in the human development program).
Bottom line: the strength (effectiveness) of educational influence lies in the targeted, systematic and qualified management of the development of a growing personality.
The weakness of education is that it is based on a person’s consciousness and requires his active participation in his own development and formation.
IV) Is the influence on the development of heredity, environment and upbringing supplemented by another important factor? activity of the individual.
Pedagogical practice and scientific research show that from the point of view of the influence of heredity, environment and upbringing on a child, it is impossible to explain why, under the same conditions of upbringing, training and development, children with the same heredity (2-3 children in a family) grow up different. Or why children who grew up in worse conditions and clearly do not have natural talents often achieve greater success in life than those who had better everyday and natural starting opportunities.
In pedagogy, K.D. Ushinsky was the first to answer these questions. He expressed the opinion that a person himself takes part in the formation of his character, his personality; by participating in various types of activity (mental, labor, social, technical and creative, etc.) a person transforms the surrounding reality and himself. For pedagogical practice, this provision is extremely important: if a teacher wants to teach or educate a child, he must involve him in the appropriate educational, labor, artistic-aesthetic, etc. activities. Activities can be active or passive. From the depths of centuries the saying has come down to us: “How much sweat? so much success." This means that it is not so much the activity itself that is important, but rather one’s own tension (mental or physical), one’s own efforts, and the individual’s own activity manifested in this activity. Consequently, a child (student, pupil) in the educational process is not so much an object of the teacher’s influences and efforts, but rather a subject? an active participant in one’s own development, formation, i.e. own upbringing. Understanding this has led pedagogical science to the need to answer the question: when does a child become a subject of education and what is necessary for the formation of subjectivity (activity) of a growing personality. Scientists have found that personality activity is selective. It follows from this that personality development occurs under the influence of not any, not all influences, but those of them that find a positive response in the child’s internal emotional sphere (feelings, experiences), express his own needs and stimulate him to actively work on himself, those. stimulates him to self-development, self-improvement and self-education. This phenomenon in pedagogy is usually called the personification of education (Greek “persona” - personality, “face” - to do). It follows from this that the process of personality development is essentially a process of self-development, and all attention (educational and environmental influences)? it is only a means, a mechanism for launching this activity.
Loading...