The education of a growing person as the formation of a developed personality is one of the main tasks of modern society.
Overcoming the alienation of man from his true essence, the formation of a spiritually developed personality in the process of historical development of society does not occur automatically. It requires efforts on the part of people, and these efforts are directed both at creating material opportunities, objective social conditions, and at realizing new opportunities at each historical stage for spiritual and moral improvement of a person. In this dual process, the real possibility of the development of a person as a person is ensured by the totality of the material and spiritual resources of society.
The purpose of the educational process is to make every growing person a fighter for humanity, which requires not only the mental development of children, not only the development of their creative potentials, the ability to think, update and expand their knowledge, but also the development of a way of thinking and the development of relationships, views, feelings, readiness to participate in economic, social, cultural and political life, personal and social formation, development of diverse abilities, the central place in which meet ability to be a subject of public relations, the ability and willingness to engage in socially desirable activities.
The child is constantly included in some form of social practice; and if it’s special organization is absent, then the cash, traditionally formed forms of it, the result of which may be in conflict with the goals of upbringing, have an educational effect on the child. The historically formed system of upbringing ensures the assignment by children of a certain range of abilities, moral standards and spiritual guidelines that meet the requirements of a particular society, but gradually the means and methods of organization become unproductive.
The essence of a truly humanistic attitude to raising a child is expressed in the thesis of his activity as a full-fledged subject, and not an object of the upbringing process. The child’s own activity is a necessary condition for the educational process, but this activity itself, the forms of its manifestation and, most importantly, the level of implementation that determines its effectiveness, must be formed, created in the child on the basis of historically established patterns, but not blindly reproducing them, but creative use.
Pedagogy as a science of education currently has four paradigms in its arsenal, according to which the educational process is carried out — pedagogical, andrological, acmeological and communicative.
Each of them finds its application in certain conditions. The concept of the pedagogical paradigm is to educate a person using an external system of coercion, a carrot and a stick. At the same time, it is believed that the educated person cannot understand the meaning of upbringing, evaluate its necessity in the upbringing process, therefore coercion is the only way to achieve this goal. The advantages of the pedagogical paradigm are extensions of its shortcomings. There is no need to deeply take into account the individual characteristics of the foster, a formal template approach is possible, enshrined in the relevant regulatory documents. The meaning of such education can be different — from the formation of narrow specialists, incapable of creative thinking, to support the existing social system. It does not contribute to the formation of a free creative personality.
The advantages of the pedagogical paradigm are that the teacher has no need to take into account the individual characteristics of his pupils. In such conditions, any person who can affirm his superiority in one way or another can become a teacher.
What will we get as a result of such education? Most likely — a limited personality, incapable of creative thinking, unable to defend his point of view and his views.
The concept of the andrological paradigm is that the educated person is aware of the whole process of his upbringing and is able to achieve certain goals in life.
In this situation, the teacher performs only the role of an assistant or mentor, who should be able to support, push the person along the way.
The advantages of this upbringing paradigm are that the educator and the educated are in equal positions.
Proponents of this approach are convinced that every child is kind and talented from birth, and you just need to delicately help him develop these valuable qualities, in no case raping his nature. In the process of personality formation, the roles of educator and pupil are equal, and their relations are dialogue and interaction.
The main contradiction of the andrological paradigm is that for the formation of any goal, it is necessary at least to form the educated space for choosing the goal. In addition, in order to make a choice, it is necessary to present everything that you must choose from. However, this can only be imagined either in the process or after the end of the upbringing process. Of course, the requirements for the teacher in this case are increasing, because it will be necessary to take into account the individual characteristics of students, understanding that each of them will use (or not use) the taught knowledge and skills in their own way. In addition, not every educator is capable of being a teacher in this capacity.
The concept of the acmeological paradigm is that in the process of upbringing a person could be provided with maximum assistance in revealing his individual and creative capabilities.
The advantages of this approach are that it has a pronounced creative orientation, finds application in the humanitarian fields, various art and other schools and studios.
In relation to the educated, maximum individuality is manifested, and the teacher, in this case, is required to be a Person with a capital letter. It is necessary to have not only special, but also psychological training, good knowledge of people.
The concept of a communicative paradigm provides for communication and mutual improvement of all educated in one group, in the same subject area, about the same level of development.
As a result of their close communication, information, knowledge and skills are exchanged, people are improved. For example, a communicative paradigm lies at the heart of various group psychological trainings.
It is very important that the teacher, in addition to general knowledge, is also sociable, flexible and correct in communication. To achieve the goal of this educational paradigm, it is necessary that all participants in such an educational process be interested in it. As an alternative, humanistic pedagogy is being proclaimed today. She considers the formation of personality in the context of the creative interaction of generations. Her motto is full respect between the teacher and the student, all kinds of promotion of naturalness, individuality with a minimum of leadership and pressure.
This theory is not new, but is being implemented relatively recently. However, some results of this experiment are already quite obvious and allow, speaking in scientific terms, to evaluate the reliability of the hypothesis.
So, if these results are not so deplorable, at least they force one to abandon emotion. It turned out that the exclusion from the teaching practice of such concepts as “authority”, “discipline”, “obedience” — led to an easily predictable result — erosion of all kinds of authorities, loss of discipline and total disobedience. It turned out that the concepts of “spontaneity” and “responsibility” are so poorly compatible that the priority of one leads to the loss of the other.
Perhaps, instead of abandoning some paradigms in favor of others, it is necessary to conduct a search on the way to combining the basic paradigms of education and rejecting the flaws that are in any approach. For a rational kernel is contained in each paradigm, and perversions begin where the positive aspects of one approach or another are overestimated. Alternative approaches should not be underestimated or completely ignored.
References:
- Andreev V. I. Pedagogy of creative self-development. — Kazan 1996. — S. 24–35.
- Babansky Y. K. Selected pedagogical works. — M., 1989. — S. 325 -327
