Modern problems of science and education. Paradigms and their influence on human life Paradigm of a student-oriented education system

Chapter 3

If within existing rules the problem is unsolvable
then to solve it we need to change the rules.
And to change the rules, you need to change your thinking
(c) Quote

This is a set of fundamental, basic attitudes, values ​​and. Our starting point.

Our paradigm (picture of the world) consists of what we see and feel. If we do not feel and see all the factors influencing the system, then the paradigm is incorrect or incomplete.

What you are now, your personality, is, in fact, a set of certain characteristics that together determine your outlook on life, your personal paradigm. According to Castaneda, this is the position of the “Assemblage Point”.

Sometimes this ossified a person's personality becomes the main barrier at the beginning of the journey. Its design, in fact, turns out to be far from perfect, which a person himself can understand. But, at the same time, he may not be ready to change anything about himself.

Once upon a time, people did not want to admit that the earth was round. Thousands of arguments have been found to prove the opposite. And those who argued were burned at the stake.

What I will write here is a revision of the personal paradigm. That is, most of the fundamentals that many believe in.

*************************

Look. If we put a mouse in a maze with four tunnels, and we always put cheese in the fourth tunnel, after a while the mouse will learn to look for cheese in the fourth tunnel. Would you like some cheese? Zip-zip into the fourth tunnel - that's the cheese. Do you want cheese again? Zip-zip into the fourth tunnel - that's the cheese.
After some time, the great God in a white robe puts the cheese in another tunnel. Mouse zip-zip into the fourth tunnel. There is no cheese. The mouse runs out. Again into the fourth tunnel. There is no cheese. Runs out. After some time, the mouse stops running into the fourth tunnel and looks somewhere else.


The difference between a mouse and a person is simple - a person will run into the fourth tunnel forever! FOREVER! The man BELIEVE in the fourth tunnel. Mice don't believe in anything, they are interested in CHEESE. And a person begins to believe in the fourth tunnel and believes that it is right to run into the fourth tunnel, whether there is cheese there or not. A person needs rightness more than cheese. That's why you haven't had any cheese for a long time and your life isn't working. YOU believe in too many fourth tunnels.

I want to help you throw out your entire belief system and completely gut you. So you can put yourself back together and get your life back on track. But don't think it will be easy. You know YOU are RIGHT. Your whole life is based on the principle of being right. It doesn't matter that you're suffering, that your life isn't working, that you haven't had cheese since you were in the fourth grade. YOU'RE RIGHT. Your belief systems are the best that the mind can create or that money can buy. These are correct belief systems. And the fact that your lives are crumpled is an accident.

No!!! Your “right”, smart belief systems, your personality paradigm, are directly related to the fact that you don't get cheese. You'd rather be right than happy. And you've been running through fourth tunnels for years to prove it. The brain protects everything it believes in in the most sophisticated ways. And perhaps much of what I will write here will, at best, be received with resistance.

Shaking and changing the personal paradigm, even in a narrow area, is a difficult task. A person is designed in such a way that common sense most often does not guide, but is adjusted to emotions, sensations and beliefs. Especially when it seems that the earth is flat... how can it be round... this is absurd...


To really understand something fundamentally new, you first need to abandon the old, at least for a while. Don't try to resist it. Try to believe in this new thing. Try to understand and feel. Try to imagine for a moment that everything I write here is true. Live in this model for a while. Analyze, check, and only then decide which paradigm is correct.

Giving up your old identity is not easy, especially for those who have lived their lives behind them. After all, their personality is their brainchild, which they carried out and of which they are proud! And changing this state of affairs is quite risky because... this is fraught with the loss of at least some, albeit imperfect, connection with the world. But in reality this connection is illusory.


People are afraid of change because they do not understand that development does not imply the abandonment of the old personality, but its transformation! Personality is a set of information. Changing personality means revising information and bringing it to a new order. By changing your personality, you, to some extent, lose it. The only question is why you are doing it.
In the long run, you are doing this to improve your life, to make life more efficient for you.

It is impossible to change someone’s beliefs; you can only provide information and arguments so that the person thinks about it himself.
Only those who vitally need it, as it was necessary for me, can understand all this. It's complicated. However, once you understand the essence of things, understanding the correct patterns of interaction taking place in your head and beyond, you will learn to turn your life around in ways you never imagined.

Actually, this is what my book is dedicated to - to try to help you change the personal paradigm of relationships to a more efficient one. If you succeed (your thinking changes), then along the chain of cause-and-effect relationships the result will change.


But if someone really wants to change and develop, then let them be prepared for the stages of instability, when the old dies away, and the new is formed in the person himself, his psyche, reactions, and so on. It happens at the border where one person ends and another begins.

Everywhere and always there is a “piece of cheese” waiting for us if we manage to cross the threshold of our doubts and fear. Go for the “cheese” and enjoy the change.

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.

Basic pedagogical paradigm XXI century

Definition of a Paradigm

A paradigm is an initial conceptual scheme, a model for posing problems and their solutions, research methods that have prevailed for 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 reform 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 groups that adhere to this pedagogical paradigm, students are carefully observed and discussed personal growth and development, they pay a lot of attention 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 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.

The paradigm of cognitive pedagogy (O. G. Prikot) coincides with the technocratic paradigm in the requirements for students to comply with the norms and standards accepted in society. The main difference between the concepts of the paradigm of technocratic and cognitive pedagogy is that the first is more focused on educating the individual according to an ideal model with given characteristics, and the second is on teaching according to curriculum and programs that meet the state educational standard.

Its peculiarity lies in the school’s focus on developing the student’s intellectual abilities, the teachers’ orientation towards fixed, measurable results, the selection of children according to their level of ability, the subsequent in-depth education of promising children and the education of children whose development needs compensation and correction in leveling classes.

Cognitive pedagogy allows you to prepare a child for strict requirements modern society, organize its development in accordance not so much with the realization of a unique individuality, but with predetermined standards derived from social expediency.

In school practice, non-cognitive, but “Zun” pedagogy is often implemented, aimed at immense expansion and deepening curricula, which puts ZUN(s) into students’ heads, but does not take into account that they undermine the psychosomatic health of children. E. A. Yamburg considers “Zun” pedagogy as a negative form of cognitive pedagogy.

An example is the ongoing debate of the cognitive paradigm of pedagogy on the issue of preference for the type of educational institution that corresponds to modern social achievements. N.I. Pirogov preferred classical education, focused on the formation of a person with a broad mental outlook. Radical democrats were supporters of a real school, since classical gymnasiums did not teach children to understand the modern state of science and public life. A.P. Shchapov justified the social order for real education by the insufficiently high level of development of domestic science and gave preference to subjects of the natural and mathematical cycle. The limitation of these preferences was the lack differentiated approach, taking into account the individual psychological characteristics and abilities of the student’s personality.

Personal paradigm. Since the beginning of the twentieth century. the transition of teachers from the cognitive paradigm of pedagogy has intensified to personal or affective-emotional-volitional, centered on the emotional and social development of students. The development of personality in the educational process becomes a value, and great importance is attached to the natural development of the student. He is given the right to choose his own learning path to achieve the best results. Within the framework of this paradigm, a truly conscious choice of the individual and his true self-determination occurs. With this approach, there is no strict adherence to norms and requirements for the student. The teacher carefully monitors the child’s personal development, constantly takes into account his individual interests and problems, and, on their basis, determines the goals of education, ways and means of their implementation.

E. A. Yamburg considers it impossible to accept either the cognitive or personal paradigms of education in a “pure” form, since they indicate the poles of the planet called personality. Their inter-paradigm cooperation is necessary.

In the history of pedagogy, the cognitive and personal paradigms interact, oppose and complement each other for many millennia. Even Socrates in the 2nd half of the 5th century. BC e. substantiated and practically implemented the cognitive approach to teaching. He argued that justice and every other virtue is wisdom. Just actions based on virtue are beautiful and good. People who know the essence of these actions will not want to perform others, and people who do not know cannot perform them. Taking a position of rationalism and pragmatism, Socrates associated virtue with true knowledge. According to this attitude, by introducing a person to true knowledge, one can make him virtuous, wise, that is, achieve moral behavior from him. This line was developed by D. Locke in the 2nd half of the 17th century, in early XIX V. substantiated by I. Herbart. In the middle of the 18th century. she was sharply criticized by J.-J. Rousseau. The confrontation between cognitive and personal pedagogy has intensified turn of the 19th century-XX centuries and continued to grow throughout the 20th century. The personal model was developed by D. Dewey, K. N. Ventzel, L. N. Tolstoy, M. Montessori, K. Rogers and other teachers. However, in mass practice the cognitive paradigm still prevails.

A different position and a different type of partiality are set by the semantic position of the subject’s “extra-location”, which is not at all identical to the absence of subjectivity; on the contrary, it insists on the presence of a person in this world, his involvement, his “non-alibi in it” (Bakhtin M.M.). The position of being outside means “listening” to another person, to oneself, to the world of all living things; it means a dialogical relationship with everything that exists on Earth. It involves the renunciation of any violence against oneself, the Other and the World in the form of remaking them in accordance with one’s own desires or ideas; it presupposes understanding and acceptance, and its motto is well-known - “reverence for life” (L.N. Tolstoy and A. Schweitzer).

The basis of the dialogical position is the experience of self-worth and deep intimacy with the world, since “no person can be completely and forever alien to another... The ethic of respect for life requires that each of us be human in some way for people” 1 . A biased dialogical semantic position does not imply an opposition between participation and independence, since true interest in the Other is disinterested, because it lies not in the relation of this Other to my needs, but in his and my self-worth. The dialogical position expands consciousness and self-awareness, admits the world and the Self into it in all its contradictions and conflicts. It is an important condition for self-development, ensuring accessibility to experience and self-reflection of any part of the self-experience; thanks to it, the “polyphony” of self-awareness sounds full-blooded, i.e. images and feelings of the Self generated by the complex intersection and interweaving of life activities.

Important conclusions follow from these provisions in relation to understanding the problem of self-awareness: a borderline personality “produces” a total-dependent or fragmented-repressive structure of self-awareness, strictly and unambiguously dichotomized depending on the satisfaction/frustration of basic needs and therefore biased, distorted, narrowed. The phenomena of borderline self-awareness can be understood, therefore, as a consequence of the unformed semantic dialogical position of the Self in the holistic system of the subject’s life.

Summarizing the presentation of the methodological paradigm of this study, we once again note the following. Self-awareness arises as highest level organization, structuring and self-regulation of the subject’s life. With its appearance, consciousness acquires a new “dimension” - partiality, representing the “world-in-the-presence of the Self” to the subject. This does not mean, however, that at the more elementary level of mental reflection there is no partiality at all; it manifests itself in the well-known phenomena of intentionality, selectivity of mental processes under the influence of the individual’s affective states, in the organizing influence of past experience (“schemas”, “hypotheses”), in the mediation of current experience by anticipatory attitudes and the “image of the world.” Thus, the first “lowest” level of partiality is given and determined by the very fact of the existential, active nature of man, the “umbilical cord” connection with the reality of his existence (Sokolova E.T., 1976). Partiality more high order is determined by the development of the value-semantic, ethical position of the individual as his way of existence in this world, attitude towards himself and Others.

Further theoretical analysis problem requires the introduction of a number of new theoretical constructs, thanks to which the “personal paradigm” of studying self-awareness is filled with specific psychological content. Self-awareness as highest form development of personal integration is subject to the same patterns of development as the personal structure that “generates” it. It is in this sense that we understand S.L. Rubinstein’s statement that self-consciousness is inserted,” “introduced” into the life of the individual. In the personal approach developed in the study, this position is revealed in two methodological theses: first, the recognition of the bias of self-consciousness, its mediation by the system of needs, motives and ethical values ​​of the individual; secondly, in the interpretation of the sources of formation and driving forces its internal transformations as processes of differentiation and integration of personal structure. The specifics of borderline self-awareness are concretized and revealed through the category of “dependent style” of the individual.

Previously, we tested the personal paradigm in the study of disturbances in the perceptual activity of mental patients, where it was shown that the bias of the subjective attitude in pathology distorts, and often completely replaces, displaces the objective content of cognitive activity: disturbances of perception do not appear in isolation from the characteristics of other cognitive processes, but characterize holistic structure (style) mental activity and personality (Sokolova E.T., 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977). The application of the categories of bias and personal style to a new problem area could not occur without additional reflection, clarification of the nature of the mental realities behind them and their interpretation within the framework of existing psychological concepts. The fact that self-awareness is biased does not raise doubts among researchers of various schools and psychological orientations. In particular, this is expressed in the identification of two constituents in self-awareness, its two components - self-knowledge and self-attitude. Our monograph “Self-awareness and self-esteem in personality anomalies” (1989) provides a detailed critical analysis empirical research and theoretical concepts developed in modern psychoanalysis and cognitive psychology of ideas about the structure and functions of affective and cognitive processes in the structure of the self-image.

We emphasize that the characteristic tendency for most Western researchers to absolutize one of the components of self-awareness, a kind of “affective” or “cognitive” reductionism, which is more appropriate in scientific debates than in the implementation of specific empirical studies, leads to unjustified accents and generalizations, artificial encapsulation of each of research paradigms. As a result, the psychoanalytic direction “usurps” the topic of studying the affective determinants of self-awareness, resulting in experiences of satisfaction, self-pride or guilt, shame, and humiliation. Within the same direction, a predominantly clinical study of various mechanisms of defense of the Self is carried out, aimed at controlling and transforming negative feelings towards the Self. And although the appeal to the study of the protective mechanisms of self-attitude contains, in our opinion, an indication of the cognitive structures involved in them, supporters of psychoanalytic directions prefer to interpret them as having a purely affective nature and patterns of internal development (Bowlby J., Winnicott D., Kohut X., Kernberg O., Mahler M., Masterson J., Modell A., Tisson P. and others).

Cognitivist orientation, using the concepts of Self-schema, Self-model, self-attribution style, etc., focuses exclusively on “mental” internal processes as ways of constructing and functioning of the Self-concept (Baumeister R., Beck A., Carver Ch., Ryle A., Seligman M., Tennen X. Elike M., J. Young and others). Within the framework of this direction, the affective content of the self-image is simply expelled, so that it remains not entirely clear what is being formed and structured through various cognitive tactics and strategies.

1 Schweitzer A. is a great humanist of the 20th century. Memoirs and articles. M., 1970. P.206.