Educational Patterns In The History Of Pedagogy

Abstract

Pedagogical patterns as defined in the specialized dictionaries set the main direction in the achievement of education, reflected in the level of didactical and extra-didactical process, the instructional method or the constitutive parts which represent the main focus of the didactical projects established at the scale of the whole educational system. There is an education policy fundamentally different under the historical conditions which allowed for the assertion, both in theory and practice of the school system, of some paradigms which focus on: a) the teacher, teaching, guided learning – the magistro-centric paradigm; b) student’s individual psychological needs- the psychocentric paradigm; c) society’s needs as well as economical, civic, cultural, political, religious, community needs - the sociocentric paradigm; d) the technology of education, the didactic methodology, types of organization in instruction, etc. – the technocentric paradigm; the goals of education designed according to level of the educational system and process- the paradigm of the curriculum. Our study proposes three objectives: 1) defining the concept of pedagogical pattern; 2) application of the concept of pedagogical pattern throughout the history of pedagogy in order to understand the paradigms which were promoted in the course of time; 3) examining some pedagogical patterns/ paradigms which foreshadow the progress in the evolution of pedagogical thinking both at a global level (John Dewey) and at a national level (Spiru Haret).

Keywords: Historypedagogypedagogical pattern

Introduction

Application of the notion of pattern in pedagogy may be of use to the examination of the specific

subject–education- thoroughly studied from the standpoint of each educational science, from the

fundamental ones (the fundamentals of pedagogy/ the general theory of education, the theory and

methodology of instruction/ general didactics, the theory and methodology of the curriculum, the theory

of pedagogical research/ the theory of educational research), to the most recent, developed

intradisciplinary (the theory and methodology of assessment, the theory of effective communication/ of

effective teaching, the theories of learning, the theory of civic education, etc.) and interdisciplinary (the

psychology of education/ the sociology of education, the management of education, the management of

school organization, classroom management/ lesson management, etc.)

The Concept of Pedagogical Pattern

The concept is defined in the specialized dictionaries as: a) didactical pattern, learning pattern; b)

the pattern of pedagogical conduct specific to educators; c) global pattern of systemic approach in

education/ instruction as it was historically promoted, through “the pedagogical processes, methods and

reasoning” known as “chosen solutions” meant to exploit the relation teacher – student.

(Dictionnaire de pedagogie, 2010, pp. 80, 132-133).

Application of the Concept of Pedagogical Pattern in the Course of the History of Pedagogy

Application of the concept of pedagogical pattern throughout the history of pedagogy, may help us

to grasp the paradigms which occurred in the course of time, in different historical epochs. (Cristea, 2010)

The paradigm represents a model in approaching the scientific theory, historically asserted, in the

course of many historical stages (Kuhn, 1999). From a pedagogical perspective, the subject in question is

represented by the paradigms which suggest different patterns in approaching pedagogical theory,

asserted in the course of history, acknowledged by the scientific community and applied in

the school education process. The main components of the pedagogical theory/ the theory of

education are taken into account: the goals, the contents, the methods, the assessment, which maintain the

relationship between the educator and the educated, between the teacher and the student. Depending on

the component considered to be primordial or central, lots of paradigms acknowledged throughout the

history of pedagogycould be distinguished (Cristea, 2010, pp. 42-44).

A) The magistro-centric paradigm is typical of the traditional prescientific pedagogy. It is centred on

the teacher’s activity, on teaching and controlled learning.

B) The psycho-centric paradigm is typical of modern scientific pedagogy. It is based on the

psychological needs of the student. It first came into being at the edge

between the XIXth and XXth century with the book “The century of the child” (1900). The author, Ellen

Key, asserts that ‘we must take a bow before his/ her highness, the child.’ Another representative book is

the one written by Alfred Binet (1910). The author aims at knowing the student through tests in order

to achieve an individualized education system. A special contribution is owed to the representatives of the

New Education movement: Dewey, Montessori, Decroly, Claparede, Freinet, etc. who consider that

education must be based on the exploitation of children’s/students’ motivation (interests, needs, etc.).

C) The sociocentric paradigm is a reply to the psychocentric paradigm, with which it was in

dispute in the course of the XXth Century, in the context of modern scientific pedagogy. The sociocentric

paradigm was launched and supported in terms of doctrine by Durkheim (1922). He suggests a definition

of education typical of the sociocentric paradigm. Education represents “the methodical socialization of

the young generation” facilitated by the mature generation. Socialization can be achieved in different

versions which focus on the politicization, technicisation, polytechnicalisation of education, etc.

D) The technocentric paradigm lies at the heart of education the education technology, which

is achieved on the basis of educational objectives. In this context, “pedagogy through objectives”

which foreshadows the paradigm of the curriculum, is promoted. Educational technology is not restricted

to the educational methods or to the didactical methods. It refers to projects which take

into consideration the connection between objectives and methods, between contents and learning tools,

etc. on the one hand, it exploits the thesis of the psychocentric paradigm, developed from the perspective

of cognitive psychology. On the other hand, it considers the resources of social learning, of importance

from the perspective of the sociocentric paradigm.

E) The paradigm of the curriculum is typical of the postmodern pedagogy. It was initiated in the

middle of the XXth Century, by R.W. Tyler (1949). It lies at the heart of education the goals and

objectives of education which reflect the connection between the psychological needs (emphasized by the

psychocentric paradigm) and the social needs (emphasized by the sociocentric paradigm). The

curriculum, has been continuously evolving as a paradigm up to the XXIst Century. It contributes to the

development of many educational sciences launched from the psychocentric perspective (pedagogical

psychology, psychology of education, psychological pedagogy, differential pedagogy, age-appropriate

pedagogy; the psychology of the curriculum, the school psychology) and that of sociocentric

paradigm (social pedagogy, pedagogical sociology, work pedagogy; mass-media pedagogy). On the other

hand, it contributes to the assertion of some new sciences of education: the theory of the curriculum, the

theory of assessment, the management of school organization, classroom management, the policy of

education, education planning, the sociology of the curriculum, intercultural pedagogy, etc.)

The Analysis of Some Patterns which Foreshadow The Progress of Pedagogy

We shall analyze two patterns which foreshadow the evolution of pedagogical thinking on a global

level (John Dewey) and on a national level (Spiru Haret).

John Dewey (1859-1952), considered by historians to be a representative of modern

pedagogy, contributed to the launching of the New Education movement (Stanciu, 2006)

Analysis of Dewey’s work demonstrates that Dewey can be associated with the paradigm of the

curriculum, developed in the second half of the XXth Century, up to the XXIst Century. Ever since

Dewey (1899) suggested a synthesis between the expectations of the psychocentric-sociocentric

paradigm, by means of which he sets out the bias of the paradigm of the curriculum. Education must

be centred upon the child’s inner psychological resources as well as on society’s needs which

contributes to the exploitation of psychological resources (1899).

In the famous work, J. Dewey (1902)shows the lead to be followed in building the syllabus which

we call today curricular – relating the contents of science, culture, art, etc. To the child or the student’s

life experience. The idea of exploiting student’s experience as well as guiding him/ her based on some

“positive goals” conceived as inner rather than outer goals.

In “Experience and education” Dewey refers to education as a reconstruction of experience based

on some “positive goals”, observing two principles which we can consider as principles of the

curriculum or principles of school curricular project: 1) the principle of ensuring continuity between

the students’ experience and the content of the syllabuses; 2) the principle of interaction between the

inner (the student’s) circumstances and the outer conditions (those of the syllabus and the

teacher’s) within any learning activity.

Spiru Haret (1851-1912) is honoured in the history of pedagogy as the minister who designed the

school reform at the edge between the XIXth –XXth century. In those times traditional spontaneous

reforms considered only a partial change, separately made at each level of the school system. (Bîrzea,

1976). The historical contribution of Spiru Haret resides in the fact that he surpassed this

tendency specific to the partial traditionalist reforms. The reform that Spiru Haret between 1896-1910, is

a “structural reform”. By his way of thinking, Spiru Haret was ahead ofhis times in terms of policy of

education, as well as that of social pedagogy. He may be considered as a representative of social modern

pedagogy, who foreshadowed the interdisciplinary research typical of the sociology of education, which

has been developed throughout the entire XXth Century.

In Spiru Haret’s view, the school reform is a reform of the school system and education. It

was “conceived by Spiru Haret (in collaboration with C. Dumitrescu-Iasi) and put into practice through a

“set of laws” which promoted innovation at all stages of the school system”. The three laws of the

reform – “The law of the primary school system” (1896, 1901), “The law of the secondary and higher

education school system” (1898), “The law of vocational school system” (1899) - as well as “The law for

preschool institutions” (1909) and “Circular for primary school teachers to set up courses for

adults” (1907), ‘confirm the fundamental contribution made by Spiru Harett the making of the modern

education system at the edge between the XIXth—XXth Century’.

The historical value of the reform done by SpiruHaret, acknowledged throughout the

entire interwar period, comes from: a) the clarity of goals assumed in relation to the national goal; b) the

coherence of the principles it promoted in the spirit of the reform – education seen as a “cultural unit”,

patriotic education, both realistic and practical, extracurricular education; c) the realism of organizational

and content-based structures, also open to the idea of adult education” (Cristea, 2001, p.326). From this

perspective, Haret’s reform foreshadows the educational policies established by UNESCO after the years

1970-1980 and up to the present day.

References

1. Binet, Alfred. (1910). Modern ideas about children, Suzanne Heisler, Albi.
2. Bîrzea, Cezar. (1976). Contemporary educational reforms. Tendencies and significations. Editura Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucharest.
3. Cristea, Gabriela. (2001). The Education Reform, a Historical Perspective (1864-1944), Editura Didactica si Pedagogica R.A., Bucharest.
4. Cristea, Sorin. (2010). Epistemological basics of pedagogy, Editura Polirom, Iasi.
5. Dewey, John. (1899). School and society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Dewey, John. (1902). Child and the curriculum, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Dictionnaire de pedagogie. 120 notions-cles. 320 entrees. Classemenet thematique (2010), Nathan, Paris.
8. Durkheim, Emile. (1922). Education and sociology, transl. New York, The Free Press, 1965.
9. Key, Ellen. (1900). The century of the child, Stockholm. Reprint, 1996; New York: Arno Press, 1972.
10. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1999). The structure of scientific revolutions, Editura Humanitas, Bucharest.
11. Stanciu I. Gh. (2006). School and the Pedagogical doctrines, third edition, revised, European Institute, Iasi.
12. Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of the Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Vîgotski, L.S. (1971). Opere psihologice, vol.1., Editura Didactica si Pedagogică, Bucharest.
14. Vîgotski, L.S. (1972). Opere psihologice, vol.2., Editura Didactica si Pedagogică, Bucharest.