Candidate’s degree in Political sciences Nassimov
M.O.,
master of philosophy Paridinova B.Zh.
University «Bolashak», Kyzylorda, Kazakhstan
Modern paradigms of upbringing
One
of the most fundamental functions of a nation-state is forecasting the
development of all sectors of society. Forecasting the development of national
science and education, comprehension of the conditions for upbringing of youth in the 21st century engenders
a lot of drawbacks. While problems in the theory of education today cause a great interest among scientists and,
character building issues are the
subject of research after the collapse of the Union, many of the provisions are
considered as previous theories of communist education, as it is difficult to
determine goals of education with its
contradictions in a modern society. The upbringing process is a system of
training and formation of personality corresponding to socio-cultural regulatory models of social and cultural
life. According to scientists consideration, upbringing is a mechanism ensuring the preservation of the population
history. Upbringing is an integral
part of pedagogic science.
Objective
of upbringing - the expected changes of human made under the influence of
specially trained and systematically performed character building activities
and actions.
With
the help of education the human values that society needs are formed. Firstly,
the possibility of a person to express their thoughts, to communicate;
secondly, the activation of behavior directed to environmental change; thirdly,
the service of relationship within elements of environment through the means of
production.
The
results of the research are shown based on the analysis of the paradigms of
upbringing. The basic functions of the mass media in the process of a person
upbringing in the age of information technology have been analyzed.
The
consideration of the theory of upbringing in terms of the paradigm is of great
interest. According to opinion of Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-1996), the
development of science occurs due to a change of scientific paradigm. Let's
consider each of the paradigms of upbringing [1].
Authoritarian education paradigm. Traditional paradigm of upbringing. Distinctive feature is the one-way
communication between teacher and educate; thereby the first is always right
and the second is to believe in and follow him. The basic function of this model of education is the transmission of
accumulated knowledge, social values and life experiences from
generation to generation. Ideas
of the called paradigm reflected in the work of the German philosopher and
educator Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841). He believes that the main
purpose of upbringing is to impart skills for combining the freedom of ethical
thoughts with varied interests and goals.
Paradigm of nature figured education. This is the first response to the authoritarian upbringing, to the
traditional pedagogy. Its basic ideas are in line with the thesis Y.A. Kamensky:
firstly, education is universal and is not determined by class barriers;
secondly, education must conform to human nature, "the nature is complex
and complicates the upbringing"; thirdly, the universal education needs the universal teachers (each individual needs
creative guide for improvement). In the early 20th century the called paradigm
was revived by the Swedish writer and educator Ellen Karolina Sofia Key
(1849-1926). She articulated a conception of free education. In her book
"The age of the child" (1905. 326 p.), she said that children have
the right for free development.
Paradigm of education in the collective body of peers.
Collective body is the official education system of
the Soviet period when it lost its scientific significance and is considered an
instrument of ideology. According to the communist ideology, a collective body
is a form of education that will lead to a brighter future, and an
individualism is a sign of capitalism which prevents the development of
mankind. The official pedagogy of a number of countries was based on this point
of view, as the value of the socialist countries were subjected to totalitarian
control which was based on the notion
of the collective body. However, it is erroneous to consider that a
collectivism is a product of the socialist idea. In the capitalist society the
upbringing on the mentioned paradigm was implemented through the organization
"Scouting" that shows that the idea of collectivism is not alien to
capitalist ideas.
Among
the firsts who followed the way of collective body upbringing were the Polish
educator Janusz Korczak (1888-1939) and the Russian teacher
A.S. Makarenko. Today, some scientists have expressed their point of view
that A.S. Makarenko formed a totalitarian system of upbringing, and that there
is no space for a free person. However, the works of the educator were
appreciated in Germany. Among social workers and educators of Germany the works
of Makarenko obtained a wide circulation; they have been translated and
published in Germany. The model created by a renowned pedagogue gives practical
results. Upbringing taking place in the collective body that is combined by
common activity solves many problems. This system can be easily adapted to new
conditions. It should also be noted that the opportunities for shaping the
living, social skills of children appear when using the ideas of this paradigm.
Paradigm of individual survival in a risk society. This paradigm is still being formed, so therefore, it has no specific
characteristics. It reflects the modern era of globalization with its
advantages and risks. There is no doubt that a postmodernism will impact on
arranging the theoretical basis of the mentioned paradigm for.
Traits
that characterize the paradigm of individual survival in a risk society are
marked in the writings of the famous European sociologists Ulrich Beck (1944)
and Anthony Giddens (1938). According to the point of view of Ulrich Beck, risk
society will come into existence when the traditional society is over and
traditions lose their regulatory role.
Literature:
1. Луков Вал.А. Парадигмы воспитания // Гуманитарные науки: теория и
методология. – 2005. - №3. – С. 139-151.