Обоснование научных дефиниций образования в историко-педагогических исследованиях

Modernized processes in contemporary education sharpened a number of problems in teaching theory as a complex systematic science on the content and methodological equipment of the process of “getting” knowledge. Students of different ages (note that our research is focused on the particular system of basic higher education) must master the mechanisms of independent search for topical information, understanding it and transforming it into a personal educational product – the result. Yet, regretfully, the teachers are often not attentive enough to forming their own didactic position, can not single out the aspects that are important for them from the numerous theories and concepts in the experience of pedagogical history.

In order to substantiate the methodological constructs of the modern didactics we carried out a profound analysis of the concepts in the area of the studied phenomenon. The key scientific categories in this case were “didactics”, “system”, (pedagogical) “system” and “didactic system”.

Note that the philosophy of science and history of pedagogy treat “didactic system” in different aspects. It was important for us to understand that “scientific category” (category from the Greek kategoria – “a feature, a statement”) is a fairly traditional and general notion reflecting certain basic, fundamental, well established links and relationships in the objective reality and cognition. This approach focuses on the system as it is based on the principle of systematic knowledge drawn to a certain system via the theories that already are in the experience and science. Any scientific category is viewed within a certain time segment and in the context of its historical development. Definitions of a concept are often quite general especially when compared to other concepts allied or related in the sense and subject matter. Scientific categories can also reflect most essential links and relations established in pedagogical reality [8].

Definition< in its turn, specifies and complements the content of the scientific category and is treated as definition of the concept or word, as a completed logical operation that reveals the meaning on the basis of singling out and describing the differences of the concept or phenomenon.

Let us consider the characteristics of didactics (from the Greek didaktikós i.e. teaching, preaching) that is the main concept in the contemporary educational system. Note that today it not so much one of the leading parts of pedagogy but a coherent theory of education and teaching that deals with the logic of development, regularities and principles of knowledge acquisition, ways of activity and formation of beliefs. Didactics determines the content, amount, structure and methodological support of education [7].

Definition of the sequence of the stages of a category establishment and development is the necessary aspect in substantiating scientific definitions of education in the context history of pedagogy cognition.

The science of teaching, theory of teaching, didactics originates in the far away experience of the preceding generations. The need to develop didactics consciously shaped when the facts and achievements formed into a unified whole complex and it was necessary to pass the experience content and the ways of its transfer to the next generations.

The very scientific definition “didactics” first appeared in the works of the German

Justification of the scientific definitions of education in history of-pedagogy research

T.V. Chelpachenko, T.N. Degtyareva

education researcher Wolfgang Ratke (Ratichius) (1571-1635). Understanding of didactics was reduced to defining teaching process as an art then. An outstanding thinker and educationalist Jan Amos Komenský understood didactics in approximately the same way. But advanced much further. W. Ratke saw didactics as a “universall art of teaching everything to everybody”. J.A. Komenský wrote that teaching was to “be tied in with the way of child’s development and, most importantly, with public life as a whole” [2, p. 62].

The next sense-making stage in didactics science development is related to the name of 19th century German scholar Iohann Freidrich Gerbart who gave a new status to didactics as a consistent logically arrayed theory of teaching including the upbringing component in its content. However, the researches of W.Ratke and J.A. Komenský were not forgotten non-demanded as in the 19th century the problems of to teach what, how and what for remained topical and not fully solved.

During the second half of the 19th and early 20th century “didactics” definition was already treated not only as teaching theory (M.I. Demkov, F. Paulsen) but also as education theory (P.F. Kapterev, O. Willmann) [1, p. 5-6], including both socio-cultural and resultant (quality) components.

At that time the concept of didactics was complemented with a new sense forming content and was defined as an integral theory of education including teaching theory as well as theory of self-education in the work “On the subject, basic concepts and structure of didactics” by E.I. Perovskii [6].

M.A. Danilov and B.P. Esipov (1957) further specified didactics as a segment of pedagogy that generalizes education theory and including teaching theory, that considers the problem of correlation of the objective and tasks of education, formation of concepts of education content, characteristics of knowledge and skills acquisition process, practical experience, correlation of the regularities and principles of education and unity of the methods, organization forms and teaching techniques [1, p. 5-6].

An important contribution to the development of the Russian education in the 20th century was made by G.I. Shchukina (1977) who enriched the content of didactics as the theory of education and teachings with new meanings and persuaded the educationalists to treat it as a special segment of pedagogy focused on the study of regularities and processes emerging in education. She emphasized the study and experimental verification of the influence of inner and outer factors on the development of student personality. She also specified the object of didactics. In G.I. Shchukina’s opinion it should include interrelated activities of the teacher and student, functions (diagnostic, prognostic, normative, instrumental etc.) and the relations between the participants of the education process [5, p. 233].

Within the context of research the focus should be on didactics as an integral science embracing the system of education in all subjects and at all levels of education.

Therefore, basing on the comparative analysis of the scientific approaches to different treatments of the concepts in the scientific area of “didactics” we can single out the following problem areas studied by this science [9]:

• 1)    it substantiates the motive – “why”, content – “what” and methodological tools – “how” to teach;

• 2)    it characterizes and explains how the process is going on and what conditions are necessary;

• 3)    it studies the essential characteristics, regularities and principles of teaching, correlates them to the development, formation, upbringing and education of students and their need if creative self-realization;

• 4)    it specifies psychological and pedagogical bases and mechanisms that promote the realization of education content;

• 5)    it proposes and works out the forms, means, methods and tools of teaching;

• 6)    it constructs different models to control and assess education outcomes;

• 7)    it forecasts personal results of teaching based on different education theorie4s and conceptions.

We believe within the framework of the problems studied it is necessary to specify the definition of “system” that is used in scientific literature (philosophical, psychological, pedagogical) in different contexts as an integral system, pedagogical system, system of education components, system of education and upbringing, system of methods, forms of education etc.. Different treatments allow different original interpretation of the original meaning.

General scientific view of a system is formed of the singled out particular features of the ordered set of mutually complementary interrelated elements unified by the objective of functioning and control. These elements are interlinked with inner and outer factors of the environment as an integral whole [3].

System (from the Greek σύστημα “composed”) is not always treated in the same way in the works of philosophers. Yet, the focus in defining this concept is on unity combining several somehow interrelated resources and objects triggered via systemogenesis. This mechanism can bring different elements into one whole and it has a potential preparing the system foe adaptation to the environment. System if viewed via system analysis is an “assembly of objects, beings and interrelations between them, singled out from the environment for a certain time and with a certain purpose” [1].

The term “system” is also used to denote a particular system or an abstract theoretical model. In this approach any non-elementary object can be treated as a certain sub-system of the whole, to which the studied object is related. For this purpose separate blocks (parts) can be singled out in it and defined as interrelation of these parts following a function.

In the context of our research system important are system features interrelated with the following objects:

• 1)    motives, objectives, functions;

• 2)    the structure of the phenomenon studied;

• 3)    possibilities, resources and specifics of interactions with the environment.

Let us characterize the system features that have educational specifics.

• 1.    Features related with the motives, objectives and functions.

• a)    synergism – may be treated as onewayness (or purposefulness) of single elements to intensify the efficiency system functioning as whole;

• b)    emergence – a feature that makes the system unique, when motives, objectives and functions of single elements of the system do not coincide with the motives, objectives and functions of the whole system;

• c)    multiplicity – is understood as a feature when both positive and negative factors functioning of system single components have a quality to multiply not to add.

• 2.    System properties related to its structure:

• a)    structuredness – the feature that makes it possible for the system to decompose into separate components and establish closer (more specific) links between them;

• b)    integrity – primacy of the whole to the separate parts;

• c)    hierarchy – the property that allows to treat system elements as separate systems (subsystems) of a wider global system.

• 3.    System properties related to possibilities, resources and specifics of interactions with the environment:

• a)    communicability – functioning of a complex system of communications with the environment as a scale of rank;

• b)    interlinks and interactions of the system wit the environment;

  Justification of the scientific definitions of education in history of-pedagogy research

  
  

  T.V. Chelpachenko, T.N. Degtyareva

  
  

• c)    adaptiveness – readiness for movement, strive for balance that imply adaptation of the existing system parameters to the changing environment parameters;

• d)    integrativeness – availability of comfortable system protecting and system making factors within the system itself.

We are also interested in the point of view according to which systems can be classified by the character of links between their parameters and the environment.

• 1.    Closed systems, when there is no exchange of information with the environment. The closed systems are characterized by increasing chaos.

• 2.    Isolated systems – any exchange with the environment is excluded.

• 3.    Open systems – free exchange of information with the environment. Open systems can have the phenomena of selforganization, complicacy and spontaneous ordering.

In the traditional pedagogical context the concept of “system” is represented by the category “pedagogical system” that is also sense making in the context of our research as it denotes the interaction of different interrelated structural components unified by one educational objective of the development of individual personality.

The elements (components of the pedagogical system can be motives of teaching, teaching objective, teaching content, learners, teachers, methods, tools, techniques and forms of teaching.

There is no exact definition of the scientific category “didactic system” in pedagogical science. For example, in the researches of K.D. Ushinsky didactic views didactic system is seen in two aspects: 1) as a system of formal education focused on the development of student’s spiritual forces; 2) as a system of material education, focused on the transfer of the knowledge useful in life to the student, placing student’s intellectual development in the background.

Analysis of the existing formulations of didactic system gives ground to believe that none of them exhausts this concept as an integral phenomenon and can claim to be uniquely true and universal.

At the same time different treatments of the “didactic system” concept are not controversial but complementary, reflecting the specifics of the research positions, demands of the pedagogical science and practices as well as different approaches to singling out the components of the didactic system.

Didactic system of the classical period was treated as a precise and consistent program of “blueprint” teaching, built on the application group and individual teaching methods with the students fully subordinated to the teacher with no independent and active acquisition of the proposed material.

In the Middle Ages the “didactic system” was understood as a process verbal and book teaching focused on the development of student’s memory via learning the material by heart basing on authoritanism and visibility, the main methods and tools of teaching used family world and didactic preaching.

Didactic system of J.A. Komenský was represented by clearly outlined structural components: universal teaching objective, pansophic idea of education, system of interrelated schools, system of school education functioning (content, principles, forms and methods of teaching).

Distinctive features of the “new schools” didactic systems of the late 19th-early 20th centuries were: 1) integrated culture-bound, integrative approach to the studied subjects; 2)application of didactic materials to the teaching/learning process; organization of group and individual teaching; application of both traditional and innovative teachibg methods: play, dialogue, didactic talk, trainings, walks and excursions, free communication and independent work of children; 3) rejection of authoritanism in teaching, but focus on child’s individuality, self-control, comfortable psychological atmosphere in the children group and creating a developing life environment; 4) creative freedom of the teacher.

Our research shows the genesis of the didactic system concept, which is considered at the following levels:

– first as a total of scientific and methodological support of teaching, education and development in the framework of a certain civilization period or author’s pedagogical experience [4; 12];

– second, didactic system is a process realizing the teaching objective at the co-action level to provide the achievement of thee common objective, including complex solving of teaching, development and upbringing tasks at every class so that each part woul work as a whole with unified upbringing and self-upbringing, education and self education, secured by the mutual activities of the teacher and students at the level of establishing links between information, organization and activity methods, control and self control [9];

– third, didactic system is understood as a singled out by certain criteria integral formation. Didactic system is characterized by inner integrity of structures formed by the unified objectives, organized principles, content forms and methods of teaching [12].

Didactic system as artificially organized due to the objective laws of social development is constantly “controlled” by the society, i.e. the social system it is part of. But as interaction in the line of meta-link (external for the system) is not continuous but selective (separate borderlines, features) the changes in the didactic system, its reconstruction and adaptation depend on at what element or elements are influenced by the society at the particular moment: strengthening the material facilities, improvement of education content or care of teacher’s financial standing etc..

Therefore, study of the process of establishment and development of didactic categories specified which particular mechanism reveals the nature of the interaction between the components of a didactic system and is a certain key to understand many typical mistakes in making decisions in the area of education at all levels. The reasons of many unsuccessful attempts to improve the didactic systems are in non-systematic, local approach to the transformation of its structural elements [1; 11].