Humanitarian Paradigm Views Of Teachers And Implementation Of The Paradigm’s Continuity

Abstract

The article describes two key approaches that take place in education and are reflected in pedagogy as a science, an academic discipline and in pedagogical activity: humanitarian - from the human perspective - Humanities (post-non-classical type of scientific rationality, strengthening the human dimension of pedagogical science and activity, focus on interests of a child, humanistic paradigm, research with the ontology of "activity") and positivistic, technological - from the standpoint of "pure science" or technology - Technology (classical type of scientific rationality, technocratic (natural) scientific paradigm, ontology "thing-feature-attitude"). It is shown that in the educational practice the humanitarian approach is not widely used. It often remains a declaration: it is common for teachers to idealize the teacher's image ("A good teacher hides his real feelings from schoolchildren", "A good teacher answers any question"), exaggeration of the importance of the methodology ("The method is omnipotent"), the negative perception of the pedagogical profession ("Teacher's work is a complete hassle, martyrdom"), students ("Modern-day children do not want to learn"). The possible ways of implementing the humanitarian approach, the humanitarian educational paradigm in vocational training and practical activities of the teacher of the future, from the standpoint of pedagogical mythology - a new concept of myth and mythology in education - are proposed. The mechanisms of ensuring continuity in the implementation of the humanitarian approach are revealed at the stages of vocational training, professional adaptation, and professional maturity of a teacher. These approaches and methods make it possible to harmonize pedagogical communications on humanistic grounds.

Keywords: Humanitarian approachmechanisms for ensuring continuity in the implementation of the humanitarian approachpedagogypedagogical mythologyteacher conceptstechnological approach

Introduction

In recent decades the public, the pedagogical community and pedagogical science have recognized the need to strengthen the humanitarian vector in pedagogical science, the professional training of teachers, and pedagogical activity. However, in educational practice, the humanitarian approach is not widely used. It often remains a declaration, as evidenced by the "humanitarian crisis", the "spiritual crisis". In pedagogical science, as in the teaching of pedagogy as an academic discipline, there are also strong trends in the absolutization of positivism and technology. This state of affairs is aggravated by the re-mythologization of pedagogical science and practice, conditioned by the prevailing situation : - in society : the mythologization of public consciousness, criticism of a scientific attitude, a return to religion (Kauff, Asbrock, Thörner,  & Wagner, 2013; Murphy, Richeson, Shelton, Rheinschmidt, & Bergsieker, 2013; Bylieva, Lobatyuk, Nikiforova, & Petrova, 2017) ; - in education : liberalization, market orientation, a permanent process of reforming, frequent changes in educational standards, the need for which is not always recognized by practicing teachers; imitational processes, active myth-making at the levels of managers and executors (Efremova, 2013; Morozova, 2000; Raff, 1994; Mynbayeva & Kurmanova, 2012; Sokolova, Pylkin, Safonova, & Stroganova, 2017; Pozdeeva, Trostinskaya, Evseeva, & Ivanova, 2017) ; - in pedagogical science : the post-non-classical stage of development, the blurring of boundaries between scientific and non-scientific knowledge, the polyphony of scientific and pedagogical approaches and theories, some remoteness from practice, an internal crisis, the inability in some cases to qualitatively satisfy the emerging demands, the spread of scholasticism and pseudoscientific theories (Tyunnikov & Maznichenko, 2004; Akopova & Chernyavskaya, 2014).

Problem Statement

In this regard, it seems relevant to make an empirical and theoretical research of manifestations in educational practice of the two key approaches (paradigms): • Humanities - research and construction of educational and social practices from the positions of the person (Humanities) - post-non-classical type of scientific rationality, strengthening of the human dimension of pedagogical science and activity, focus on the interests of the child, humanistic paradigm, humanitarian studies with the ontology of "activity" (Toosi, Babbitt, Ambady, & Sommers, 2012; Gullett & West, 2016); • positivistic (technological) - research and construction of educational practice from the standpoint of "pure science" or technology - a classical type of scientific rationality, a technocratic (natural) scientific paradigm, an ontology "thing-feature-attitude" (Tyunnikov, 2014).

We posed the following scientific problem: do the views of future and practicing teachers correspond to the humanitarian paradigm and how to ensure the harmonious realization and continuity of humanistic grounds in pedagogical science, teacher training and educational practice?

Research Questions

We examined the implementation of the humanitarian and positivistic approaches in four aspects:

(1) pedagogy as a science (Science) - reflects the process and the result of learning of pedagogical reality by scientists, through scientific methods - scientific pedagogical theories, patterns, concepts, etc. (2) pedagogy as an academic discipline (Studies) - the content and the process of cognition of pedagogical reality by the future teacher in the process of studying at the university, with the help of a teacher and various sources of information (both scientific and artistic, religious, esoteric, personal experience, etc.) - didactically adapted scientific and pedagogical theories in their interaction with the student's world; (3) pedagogy as a technique (didactics, technology) (Technology) - technologically (didactically, methodically, and normatively) meaningful scientific and pedagogical theories presented in the form of methodologies, technologies, recommendations, normative documents for the sphere of education, curricula, educational programs etc., as well as the process and result of comprehension; (4) pedagogy as a practice of pedagogical interaction in a real educational system (educational organization, educational process, pedagogical situation) (Praxis).

The Conceptual core was based on pedagogical mythology (Tyunnikov & Maznichenko, 2004) and a new concept of myth and mythology in education - pedagogical mythology (Maznichenko, 2018)

The analysis of the scientific literature and educational practice made it possible to conclude that in each of the above four aspects of pedagogy, one can find the processes of mythologization - the interaction of pedagogy and mythology (ideology). However, this interaction, realized from the positions of the humanitarian and positivistic approaches, is built in different ways. Let us give an example with reference to the aspect of "pedagogy as a science":

- from the standpoint of the positivist approach, pedagogical science and myth oppose each other, the myth is reduced to an inadequate, not corresponding to scientific norm, an outdated (archaic) notion. Mythologization of science is regarded as scholasticism, delusion. The heuristic potential of the pedagogical myth is not considered (denied). The purpose of science is to study the "real-world reality", i.e. a naturalistic view of the subject of science ("naive realism"). The ideology of science is a materialistic "natural attitude". Mythology is woven into the "credo of a naive scientist";

- in the humanitarian paradigm, science and myth are viewed as complementary ways of cognizing the pedagogical reality. They do not oppose each other, and the ways of their mutual enrichment are being pursued. The heuristic potential of the pedagogical myth and other extra-scientific forms of cognition of pedagogical reality are identified and studied. The ideology of science - a humanitarian mindset - the consideration of pedagogical reality as a changing, "living" phenomenon, depending on the value orientations and subjective perception of the researcher. In extreme manifestations, science can be regarded as a myth. Cognition is understood as a kind of collective discourse aimed at "solidarity", but not at a certain Truth.

With reference to the aspect of "pedagogy as an academic discipline":

  • teaching pedagogy from the standpoint of the positivistic approach presupposes the transfer to students of only established scientific knowledge, ignoring the ordinary, religious, artistic-imaginative knowledge of pedagogical reality, presenting proven "pedagogical truths," mastering advanced (innovative) methods and technologies of upbringing and education, which leads to alienation of students from pedagogical knowledge;

  • Humanitarian teaching of pedagogy as an academic discipline presupposes the creation of conditions for personal understanding of pedagogical knowledge by students, including from the standpoint of their own pedagogical experience, the realization of their spiritual, aesthetic and ethical values, the dialectical nature of teaching, the presentation of contradictory views and theories, the use of both scientific and everyday knowledge, folklore, myths, art, literature in the cognition of pedagogical reality. In this case, pedagogical knowledge ceases to be idealized and ideologized, dogmatized, divorced from practice; it becomes vital, "alive" (Zinchenko), personal.

Positivist implementation by a practicing teacher of the aspect of "pedagogy as a methodology" presupposes a clear, algorithmic, step-by-step implementation of methodological recommendations, instructions, implementation of standards, the introduction of innovations without realizing their personalized meaning; correlation with existing conditions, the desire to achieve a guaranteed result. Pedagogy as a humanitarian technique is implemented taking into account the personality of the teacher and students. Its main goal is not to obtain a guaranteed result, but to realize the needs of the individual, assist his self-development, personal growth. The same applies to pedagogical interaction. In the positivistic paradigm, it is constructed formally, according to the function. Humanitarian pedagogical interaction is informal. Its goal is the realization and development of the subjectivity of both the teacher and the students.

Purpose of the Study

We conducted an empirical study of the views of future and practicing teachers to understand: what is their content, theoretical and axiological base; what paradigms do they reflect on cognitive, relative and behavioral levels? How do scientific, mythological and everyday ideas interact in the teacher's mind? Within the framework of the study, criterial diagnosis of mythologized forms of knowledge and behavior of future and practicing teachers was carried out using a complex methodology.

Research Methods

140 practicing teachers participated in the experiment (teachers of schools (primary school, Russian language and literature, mathematics, history, social studies, social pedagogues), pre-school educators), 50 students of the 4th (final) course and 48 students of the first year - future teachers of the Russian language and literature, and teachers of primary classes. To achieve the goal, the following methods were used:

Methods for investigating the views of practicing teachers

Conceptual-narrative forms were identified using the following methods: Modified version of the questionnaire Janet Wojtitz "Truth or Delusion". Purpose: to identify mythological representations, contradictions between scientific and mythological representations in relation to the four pedagogical functions (according to Kuzmina) - gnostic, communicative, constructive, organizational). The method of unfinished sentences. Respondents were asked to finish sentences in one or more words. The systematization of the endings of the phrases proposed by the respondents (in terms of their prevalence among teachers) and their differentiation in content was carried out.

Figurative-symbolic forms : The technique "Portraits of the participants in pedagogical relationships" (modified technique "Sexes and their behavioral portraits" by Rumyantseva): main subjects of the educational process identification in the teacher (as they exist in reality and what the teacher would like them to be) and distortions present in them. The semantic differential of C. Osgood: the identification of the semantic profiles in key pedagogical phenomena and processes, peculiar to pedagogues (Osgood, May, & Miron, 1975).

Methods for revealing mythologized representations with future teachers

Conceptual-narrative forms were identified using the following methods:

"Pairs of affirmations" method. Students were offered pairs of statements, including a scientific and everyday view or two ordinary representations. In each pair of statements it was suggested to choose the one with which the subject agreed.

Figurative-symbolic forms were revealed by the method of the semantic differential of Osgood (Osgood, May, & Miron, 1975). Diagnostics was done in two stages. At the first stage, preparatory work was carried out, related to the selection of adjectives, so that in the second stage of the diagnosis, the necessary "hit in the mental field" of the students is achieved. To solve this problem, the method of unfinished sentences was used.

The second stage of diagnosis suggested the direct application of the technique. Subjects had to evaluate, with the help of a set of bipolar scales of adjectives, four main objects of pedagogical reality: the modern teacher, students, the pedagogical process, conflicts with students. Each scale had seven gradations. The extreme poles of the scale (values ​​"-3" and "+3") corresponded to extreme negative and positive evaluation, the average division (0) made it possible not to answer in case of difficulty. On each scale, there was a shift in the direction of positive or negative estimates. The assessments of future teachers of the Russian language and literature, and primary school teachers (graduation students) were compared. To compare the estimates, we used the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test. According to the results of the semantic differential, mythological constructs were represented in a set of negative generalized images: "Negative generalized image of modern students"; "Negative generalized image of a modern teacher"; "Negative generalized image of the present-day pedagogical process"; "Negative generalized image of conflicts with students".

We used the method of frequency analysis to compile semantic profiles that allow us to correlate conceptual-narrative and figurative-symbolic constructs. For the compilation of such profiles, scales were identified, the estimates of which corresponded to the basic concept (the asserted value) of the construct, and for which there was a shift towards negative estimates. We counted the number of students who marked the extreme negative characteristics (-2; -3) on the scales that corresponded to the content of the construct. With the help of semantic profiles, conceptual-narrative constructs, identified by the technique of "Pairs of affirmation", and figurative-symbolic constructs, diagnosed with the help of a semantic differential, were compared.

Findings

The results of the diagnosis of the views of future teachers

The results of the method "Pairs of affirmations" showed that the students of the first year gave first place (93%) to the idea, contradicting the humanitarian paradigm: "The work of a teacher is a complete hassle, eternal martyrdom caused by children" (practicing teachers have it in much fewer cases - only 16% with pre-school teachers and 30% with school teachers, which suggests the possibility of overcoming it in the course of actual professional activity). Next in prevalence is "myths of the ideal image of the teacher," which are at the base of the technological, formal ways of pedagogical interaction ("A good teacher hides his real feelings from schoolchildren" (57%), "A good teacher answers any question" (21%) and mythologized views of students ("Modern-day children do not want to study" (50%), "It is necessary to teach only those who want to learn" (14%). Less favorable with first-year students is the views: "The method is omnipotent", "Conflicts with students are inevitable and conflicts bring nothing good for the teacher (7%) (that said, among practicing teachers there is a higher number: "The method is omnipotent" - 36% with pre-school educators and 40% with school teachers, "Conflicts with students are inevitable and conflicts bring nothing good for the teacher" - with 27% and 16% respectively), as well as "Teacher is always right" (7%) (with practicing teachers this mythological construct is absent altogether).

The students of the final year have the following idea in the first place "A good teacher hides his real feelings from schoolchildren" (51%). Then follow "It is necessary to teach only those who want to learn" (36%), "The method is omnipotent" (26%), "A good teacher answers any question" (20%), "The work of a teacher is a complete hassle, eternal martyrdom", "Modern-day children do not want to study" (19%). The least popular with graduate students are "Conflicts with students are inevitable and they bring nothing good for the teacher", "The pedagogical process is coercion" (8%), "The teacher is always right" (3%).

The results of diagnostics of figurative and symbolic constructs in future teachers (using the method of the semantic differential of C. Osgood): the results, obtained with the help of the semantic differential, allowed us to present the image-symbolic constructs available to the students in a certain set of negative generalized images: modern students, teachers, the pedagogical process, conflicts with students.

Negative generalized image of modern students in the perception of first-year students is represented by the following characteristics: lazy (60%), arrogant, stubborn (40%), ungrateful, quiet, uncontrollable (33%), greedy (27%), rampant, dependent, ruthless 20%). The number of negative assessments is somewhat reduced towards the graduation year, but the list is much the same: rampant (44%), excitable (39%), dependent (30%), obstinate, stubborn (22%), quick-tempered, individualistic (20%), unorganized (17%), self-interested (16%), frivolous (13%), insolent (11%).

Modern teacher is rated more positively than the pupils, but negative assessments are also present: imperturbable, nervous (33%), authoritarian, formal, strict, captious (20%), indifferent, conflicting, degrading, disappointed, underestimating (13%). Towards the final year, the number of negative assessments is somewhat reduced: authoritarian (23%), abusive (22%), severe (20%), nervous (17%), picky, underestimating (15%), boring, quick-tempered (13%), tough, degrading (11%).

The negative generalized image of the modern pedagogical process in the perception of 1st-year students is represented by the following characteristics: coercive (27%), offensive (20%), formal, conflictive (13%), temperamental, template, static, conservative (7%). Graduation students generally shift to the negative side in comparison with the first year: compulsory (35%), template-dependent (28%), boring, monotonous (26%), everyday, formal (22%), forceful, prescriptive, uninteresting (15%), mechanical, chaotic (13%), depressing, offensive (11%). The students of both the first and final courses are dominant by the assessment of the pedagogical process as "coercive," which does not correspond to the humanitarian paradigm either.

The results of the semantic differential also showed an incorrect understanding of pedagogical conflict by students. Negative assessments of the latter by students of the first and final courses practically coincide both in number and in assortment: conflicts with students are inevitable (33%), natural (20%), meaningless (13%), unsolvable, permanent, unsuccessful (7) – first year students; unacceptable (33%), unavoidable, uncontrollable (20%), regular, unproductive, inconclusive (9%) - graduation students.

The semantic profile of the mythological construct " The work of the teacher is a complete hassle, eternal martyrdom " is in the field of the generalized image of the modern teacher and includes the basic assessment - nervous (1st year - 33%, 4th year - 17%) and additional assessments: hot-tempered (4th year - 13 %), disappointed (1st year - 13%). As it can be seen, this representation is more typical for 1st-year students.

The semantic profile of the mythological construct " A good teacher hides his true feelings from schoolchildren " is also in the field of the generalized image of the modern teacher and includes the basic assessment - imperturbable (1st year - 33%), and additional gradations: formal (1st year - 20%), indifferent (1st year - 13%). Although there were no extreme negative grades (-2, -3) by the 4th year students for " imperturbable - vulnerable " scale, however, the average grade for this gradation with 4th-year students (-1, 1 with future teachers of the Russian language and literature; and 0,3 for primary school teachers) allows one to talk about the presence of the idea "A good teacher hides his real feelings from schoolchildren" among this group of respondents, but with a lesser degree of severity.

The semantic profile of the mythological construct "Modern-day children do not want to study" is represented by the following negative assessments of the generalized image of modern students: the main assessment is - lazy (1st year - 60%), additional gradations: unorganized (4th year - 17%), frivolous (4th year - 13 %). As we see, figurative-symbolic mythological forms, correspond to the idea "Modern-day children do not want to study," are more pronounced among the students of the first year.

The semantic profile of the mythological construct "Conflicts with students are inevitable and conflicts bring nothing good for the teacher" is represented by the following set of negative assessments of the generalized image of conflicts with students: basic assessments: unavoidable (1st year - 33%, 4th year - 20%), unproductive (4th year - 9%); additional gradations: meaningless (1st year - 13%), unsolvable (1st year - 7%), fruitless (1st year - 7%, 4th year - 9%), uncontrollable (4th year - 20%), inherent (1st year - 20%, 4th year - 9%), constant (1st year - 7%). As one can see, figurative-symbolic forms corresponding to this representation are somewhat more expressed with 1st year students than with 4th year students.

The semantic profile of the mythological construct "Teacher is always right" is found in the fields of generalized images of the modern teacher and modern students and includes the following negative assessments: the basic assessment is the authoritarian teacher (1st year - 20%, 5th year - 23%), additional gradations: the teacher is tough (5th year - 11%), students are dependent (1st year - 20%, 5th year - 30%). The figurative-symbolic forms corresponding to this representation are more pronounced among the graduate students.

The semantic profile of the mythological construct "The pedagogical process is coercion" was revealed in the field of the generalized image of the modern pedagogical process and is represented by the following negative assessments: the basic assessment is coercion (1st year - 27%, 5th year - 35%), additional gradations: forcing (1st year - 7%, 5th year - 15%), depressing (5th year - 11%), attacking (1st year - 20%). The figurative-symbolic forms corresponding to this representation are more expressed with the graduate students.

The semantic profile of the mythological construct "The method is omnipotent" is presented in the field of the generalized image of the modern pedagogical process with the following negative assessments: basic assessments – template-like (1st year - 7%, 5th year - 28%), prescriptive (1st year - 7%, 5th year - 15 %), additional gradations - static (5th year - 7%). The results show a greater intensity of the figurative-symbolic forms with the graduate students. This distribution of results is quite understandable: this view is related to a specific aspect of the teacher's activity, with which the graduate students are more familiar (different methods of teaching and upbringing have been studied and tested in pedagogical practice).

Correlation analysis of the relationship of these forms using Spearman coefficient of rank correlation showed a statistically significant correlation between the conceptual-narrative and image-symbolic forms of the following mythological constructs: "The work of a teacher is a complete hassle, eternal martyrdom" (p≤0.05); “Good teacher hides his true feelings from schoolchildren”, “Modern-day children do not want to study”, “The technique is omnipotent”, “Conflicts with students are inevitable and they bring nothing good for the teacher”, “The teacher is always right”, “The pedagogical process is coercion” (p ≤ 0.01);

The results of the diagnosis of the views of future teachers

With respect to the gnostic function, the views that reflect the dependence of the results of pedagogical activity solely on the amount of wages prevail (the view "Efficiency of the teacher depends on his salary" was estimated as true by 87% of the teachers of the pre-school and 47% of the school teachers - the percentage divergence is probably related to the difference in the salary levels of the pre-school and school teachers - the lower the salary of the teacher, the more significant for the teacher is its influence on the effectiveness of pedagogical activity). 22% of teachers are convinced of the negative impact of reform on the quality of education. For 11% of them, the negative image of the pedagogical profession is a fact ("The work of a teacher is a complete hassle").

In the context of the communicative function, the idealizing images of the teacher are based on the obligation: "The teacher must love children" (87% of the teachers of the preschool, 100% of teachers in schools), "The teacher must adapt himself to the child" (57% of the teachers of the preschool, 58% of the teachers of schools), "A good teacher hides his real feelings from children" (60% of teachers at the preschool, 20% of teachers in schools), "A good teacher knows everything, answers any question" (56% of teachers at the preschool, 44% of school teachers). For a smaller number of teachers, the wrong understanding, the absolutization of ideas of a humanistic or authoritarian conception of upbringing is quite characteristic: "Communication between the teacher and the child should be built" as “equals”(44% of the teachers of the pre-school educational establishments, 41% of school teachers), “The teacher must dominate, the children must fear and obey him, otherwise upbringing is impossible” (56% of teachers in schools; for educators of pre-school this idea is not typical, which allows us to conclude that - the older the child is, the more difficult it is for the teacher to follow the humanistic concept in the process of upbringing). 27% of pre-school educators and 16% of schoolteachers absolutize the negative role of conflicts in education: 27% of pre-school teachers and 18% of schoolteachers adhere to the view “Conflicts with students are inevitable and they bring nothing good for the teacher”.

In the framework of the constructive function, the ideas that are associated with the denial of the need for the regulation of education by the state prevail: “Give teachers freedom to create, do not tie teachers rigidly to the program and the textbook, and the quality of the learning process will increase dramatically” (100% of pre-school teachers, 73% of school teachers); “There should be no priorities in training” (59% of pre-school teachers, 27% of school teachers); “The introduction of new educational standards will reduce the quality of education” (27% of pre-school teachers, 44% of school teachers - school teachers in larger numbers tend to negatively assess the introduction of new standards); “The introduction of new educational standards will not affect the quality of education in any way” (27% of pre-school teachers, 44% of school teachers). Along with the desire for creativity and fewer restrictions, in the pedagogical environment there is an absolutization of the methodology: the view "The Method is omnipotent" was estimated as correct from the point of view of their own experience by 46% of the teachers of the pre-school and 30% of schoolteachers. The teachers also have incorrect assessments of the social environment and the child as an object of constructive activity: “The characteristics of the child are determined by the environment. It is possible to accurately predict all its impacts and influences” (90% of the teachers of the pre-school educational establishment, 41% of teachers of schools – pre-school teachers, in larger numbers than schoolteachers tend to overestimate the influence of the environment on the results of education); “It is necessary to teach only those who want to learn” (14% of teachers of the preschool, 31% of teachers in schools), “Modern children do not want to study” (26% of teachers of pre-school education, 16% of school teachers) , “Some children are learning disabled and cannot be educated” (14% of preschool teachers, while this view is typically not shared by school teachers).

In the context of the organizers' function, teachers have constructs associated with an increased threshold of responsibility and the fear of delegating to students (the view “Teacher is responsible for everything” is rated as true by 73% of pre-school teachers and 61% of school teachers), with a hypertrophied desire to control children (“If I do not constantly control children, the educational process will turn into chaos” - 59% of the teachers of the pre-school, 83% of the school teachers), with a misunderstanding of their role in the educational process (“The main subject in educational process is the student” 30% of pre-school educators and 61% of schoolteachers) with false connections between personality traits and the ability to learn (“The more disciplined and diligent the child is, the higher his ability to learn” 87% of pre-school educators and 46% of school teachers). Mythologized understanding of the teachers' relations with the management of the educational institution reflects the view “Teachers in their activities must follow the instructions of the leadership”, which was assessed as true from the perspective of their own experience by 74% of teachers at the preschool level and 70% of school teachers.

Some teachers (10-20%) realize that the ideas they follow in their practical activities come into conflict with scientific norms; but they consciously adhere to mythological constructs, considering them to be more effective from practical standpoint. The rest reflect that the mythological constructs that they follow correspond to scientific norms. Some of the teachers (30-50%) recognize the statements with opposite content as true, which indicates the dialectic nature of their thinking and the possibility of seamless correction of mythological constructs by logical analysis.

The results, obtained by the method of unfinished sentences, correlate with the results of the methodology by Ja. Woititz and the existence of mythological constructs shared by teachers, associated with rejection of themselves in the profession, the idealization of themselves as teachers, the lack of striving for professional self-improvement, the selective attitude towards children, the rejection of their shortcomings, the lack of understanding of the significance of design and planning in the work of a teacher, shifting responsibility for the effectiveness of their activities to other actors and circumstances.

According to the results of the semantic differential of C. Osgood, the respondents' idealization of the image of themselves as teachers was confirmed. Their pupils are estimated by teachers higher than children in general. For the lack of effectiveness of their work teachers tend to "blame" the new standards, and do not wish to recognize that much depends on them, as subjects of implementation of said standards. Some teachers perceive their interaction with students from the standpoint of an outdated authoritarian concept of upbringing.

Conclusion

The conducted research has shown that future and practicing teachers have ideas that are contrary to the humanistic foundations of pedagogy, the humanitarian pedagogical paradigm. Such contradictions manifest themselves both at the cognitive, and the relative and behavioral levels.

The obtained data correlate with the results of previous studies of other authors. Efremova experimentally revealed the following mythological representations of students - future teacher-psychologists : “If you ignore the aggressiveness of the child, it will sooner or later change” (correlates with the construct we have registered “A good teacher hides his real feelings from schoolchildren”); “If born as a wolf – cannot become a sheep” (it corresponds with the view "Some children are learning disabled and cannot be educated”); “We are all responsible for the fact that in a child’s environment there are quarrels and destructive conflicts” (refer to the view “Conflicts with students are inevitable and conflicts bring nothing good for the teacher”) (Efremova, 2013). A study by Morozova (2000) showed that 50% of pedagogues ascribe all complications in pedagogical interactions to the child, considering only negative aspects of behavior, attributing negative qualities to children.

The exploratory study of Mynbayeva and Kurmanova (2012), conducted among schoolteachers and university professors, showed that teachers almost unanimously support the following mythologized stereotypes, expressed in the form of well-known proverbs and sayings : “A child is like wax - whatever you desire you can mold”, “Small children do not give you a chance to sleep and when they grow up – you still have no sleep because of them”, “From the mouths of babes come words of wisdom”, “Any toy is o.k. that keeps the baby at play”, “Like father like son”, “Children behave more like their peers rather than their parents”, “Physical punishment hurts but does not teach”, “Good example is the best sermon”, “Even a good father can produce a crazy sheep”, “Do not rip off unripe fruits: they will ripen - they will fall”, “Moody in childhood is ugly at an old age”, “A baby is like dough: will be as good as you knead it”, “Pampering a child is like abandoning him”, “It's better to make your son cry than to cry about him later”, “Bend the tree while it bends, teach the little one while he listens”, “Eggs do not teach the chicken”.

Raff (1994) through the teachers’ reflexive analysis of pupils’ texts about school, diagnosed the following mythological stereotypes common in the pedagogical environment, which reduce the effectiveness of pedagogical interaction: “running in place” (focus on the zone of actual development of children to the detriment of the zone of proximal development), “authoritarian style of pedagogical leadership”, “focus on the form of educational influence”, “the predominance of pedagogical measures of influence (organization, management, regulation) to the detriment of the self-organization, self-management, self-control".

The obtained results make the problem more relevant: how do we ensure continuity in the implementation of the humanitarian approach at the stage of professional training of a teacher, his professional adaptation and professional maturity, his productive and harmonious embodiment in the development of pedagogy as a science, in teaching pedagogy as an academic discipline and in the practical activities of the teacher?

In search of an answer to this question, we relied on works in the field of social myths overcoming (Cook, 2017); research in the field of individual consciousness of individuals, the manifestations at the pre-test and test levels (Fomina & Leeva, 2013), the study of students' views (Moreno & Hellín, 2014).

From the positions of pedagogical mythology, it is possible to propose the following approaches to solving the problem:

In the aspect of “pedagogy as a science”: there should be paid more attention of pedagogical science to the study of extra-scientific forms of pedagogical knowledge, their heuristic potential, the development of methods for scientific transformation of extra-scientific forms of pedagogical knowledge, giving a chance to polyphony of theories and positions in pedagogical science, the refusal to absolutize certain theories or ideas.

In the aspect of “pedagogy as an academic discipline”: to refuse to identify pedagogy as an academic subject with pedagogy as a science; aesthetically colored, emotional presentation of material, harmonization of scientific theories and everyday knowledge, personal experience of students and teachers; productive use in teaching, along with scientific, artistic-figurative, mythological, religious, everyday and other ways of cognizing the pedagogical reality, ensuring dialectic nature of the content of the discipline.

In the aspect of “pedagogy as a methodology”: to reject the dogmatization of techniques, approaches to technology, the harmonious combination of technology as an art and craft, the use of productive models of teacher training for innovation (Tyunnikov, 2014); the development with future teachers the need and ability to develop their own methods and technologies, create an advanced context of pedagogical activity. From the standpoint of the humanitarian paradigm any pedagogical methodology, the program is understood as an individual project, not pretending to be mandatory by everyone and not guaranteeing the same results for different teachers. Methodological documents introduce a personal aspect. From such positions, a multiplicity of strategic documents is inevitable, their multi-dimensionality, a combination of socio-pedagogical and personal contexts, a transition from a project to a process approach, from a program-oriented one to a scenario-based design of educational strategies and programs.

In the aspect of “pedagogy as a pedagogical interaction”: to facilitate informal, personal contacts with students, to reject manipulative tactics of interaction. One of the solutions can be a construction of pedagogical interaction as the interaction of the mythologies of its participants, which is considered and constructed dynamically in the context of specific pedagogical situations. The goal of this interaction is the positive mythological dynamics of its participants. To achieve it, the methods of situational analysis, strategy and scene-setting of pedagogical interaction can be used, taking into account the mythology of its participants, analysis of the deployment of the mythologeme while executing a pedagogical activity.

Acknowledgments

The work was carried out within the framework of the state assignment of the Institute for the Strategy for the Development of Education of the Russian Academy of Education (Project No. 27.8472.2017 / BC).

References

  1. Akopova, M., & Chernyavskaya, V. (2014). Evaluation of Academic Science: Perspectives and Challenges. Zeitschrift fur Evaluation, 2, 348-357.
  2. Bylieva, D., Lobatyuk, V., Nikiforova N., & Petrova, M. (2017). The Problem of "Sign Field" Creation for the Russian National Technology Initiative. 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM2017. Book 6, Vol. 1 (pp. 117-124). doi:10.5593/SGEMSOCIAL2017/HB61/S7.14
  3. Cook, J. (2017). How to Effectively Debunk Myths About Aging and Other Misconceptions. Public Policy & Aging Report, 27 (1), 13–17. doi:10.1093/ppar/prw034
  4. Efremova, O. I. (2013). Mifologizirovannye komponenty professional'nogo soznaniya budushchikh psikhologov obrazovaniya i ikh korrektsiya [Mythologized components of professional consciousness of future psychologists of education and their correction]. Kontsept [The concept], 5, 26-30 [in Russian].
  5. Fomina, N. A., & Leeva, A. N. (2013). Proyavleniya individualnyih osobennostey lichnosti v rechevoy produktsii na predtekstovom urovne [Manifestations of individual characteristics of a person in speech production at the pre-text level]. Psiholingvistika [Psycholinguistics], 12, 140-147.
  6. Gullett, L., & West, T. V. (2016). Understanding racial color blindness and multiculturalism in interracial relationships: Cognitive and emotional tensions and their implications. In H. A. Neville, M. E. Gallardo, & D. W. Sue (Eds.) The myth of racial color blindness: Manifestations, dynamics, and impact (pp. 69-87). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14754-005
  7. Kauff, M., Asbrock, F., Thörner, S., & Wagner, U. (2013). Side effects of multiculturalism: The interaction effect of a multicultural ideology and authoritarianism on prejudice and diversity beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 305–320. doi:10.1177/0146167212473160
  8. Maznichenko, M. A. (2018). Evristicheskiy potentsial pedagogicheskoy mifologistiki [Heuristic potential of pedagogical mythology] (Doctoral dissertation). Moscow: Institute for Strategy of Education Development of the Russian Academy of Education. [in Russian].
  9. Moreno, J. A., & Hellín, M. G. (2014). Yel interés del alumnado de Yedutsatsión Setsundaria Obligatoria khatsia la Yedutsatsión Físitsa [The interest of the students of Compulsory Secondary Education towards Physical Education]. Revista Mexicana Investigacion Educativa [Mexican Magazine Educational Research], 9 (2), 1-20. Retrieved from http://redie.uabc.mx/vol9no2/contenido-moreno.html. [In Spanish].
  10. Morozova, V. Ye. (2000). Uchet osobennostey pedagogicheskogo myshleniya pri povyshenii professional'no kompetentnosti vospitateley doshkol'nykh obrazovatel'nykh uchrezhdeniy (v usloviyakh IPK) [Taking into account the peculiarities of pedagogical thinking with increasing the professional competence of pre-school educational establishments] (Doctoral dissertation). Barnaul: Barnaul State Pedagogical University. [in Russian].
  11. Murphy, M. C., Richeson, J. A., Shelton, J. N., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2013). Cognitive costs of contemporary prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 560–571. doi:10.1177/1368430212468170
  12. Mynbayeva, A. K., & Kurmanova I. Sh. (2012). Pedagogicheskiye stereotipy v professional'noy deyatel'nosti: za i protiv [Pedagogical stereotypes in professional activity: for and against]. Vestnik KazNU. Seriya «Pedagogicheskiye nauki» [Veschitnik Kazan State University. A series of pedagogical sciences], 2 (36), 33-44 [in Russian].
  13. Osgood, Ch. Е., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbanа: University of Illinois Press.
  14. Pozdeeva, E. G., Trostinskaya, I. R., Evseeva, L. I., & Ivanova R. A. (2017). Problems of Personality Type Transformation in Current Conditions of Russian Society RPTSS 2017 International Conference on Research Paradigms Transformation in Social Sciences, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, Vol. XXXV, 1092-1099. doi: 10.15405/epsbs.2018.02.128
  15. Raff, S. Ye. (1994). Pedagogicheskoye vzaimodeystviye kak ob"yekt diagnostiki i korrektsii [Pedagogical interaction as an object of diagnosis and correction] (Doctoral dissertation). Kazan: Kazan State University. [in Russian].
  16. Sokolova, N. A., Pylkin A., Safonova A., & Stroganova, O. (2017). From totalitarianism to the consumer society: has one-dimentional policy come to an end? 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts. SGEM. Vol. 1, 261 – 269. doi: 10.5593/SGEMSOCIAL2017/HB21/S06.032
  17. Toosi, N. R., Babbitt, L. G., Ambady, N., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Dyadic interracial interactions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1–27. doi: 10.1037/a0025767
  18. Tyunnikov, Yu. S., & Maznichenko, M.A. (2004). Pedagogicheskaya mifologiya kak oblast' teoreticheskogo znaniya: nekotoryye aktual'nyye problemy [Pedagogical Mythology as an Area of Theoretical Knowledge: Some Topical Problems]. Nauka i shkola [Science and School], 5, 16 [in Russian].
  19. Tyunnikov, Yu. S. (2014). Kontseptual'naya model' podgotovki budushchikh pedagogov k innovatsionnoy deyatel'nosti (tseli-soderzhaniye-tekhnologii) [A conceptual model for the preparation of future teachers for innovation (goal-content-technology)]. Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye i nauka [Pedagogical education and science], 5, 52-62 [in Russian].

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

18 December 2019

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-050-1

Publisher

Future Academy

Volume

51

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-2014

Subjects

Communication studies, educational equipment,educational technology, computer-aided learning (CAL), science, technology

Cite this article as:

Tyunnikov*, Y., Maznichenko, M., Afanasyeva, T., & Krylova, V. (2019). Humanitarian Paradigm Views Of Teachers And Implementation Of The Paradigm’s Continuity. In V. Chernyavskaya, & H. Kuße (Eds.), Professional Сulture of the Specialist of the Future, vol 51. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 68-80). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.12.02.8