U Fanyuan, a postgraduate student of the Department

Pedagogy and Psychology Moscow State Agro Engineering University,

Moscow, Russia

SOME PECULIARITIES

OF THE COMPARATIVE EDUCATION RESEARCH

One of the most actively developing at present - in a globalizing world - branches of science and educational research is comparative studies, or comparative pedagogy.

The main content of comparativist research is a comparative study of the theory and practice of education in individual countries or group of countries (including with a view to creating a single world educational space). However, not less important problems in comparative linguistics is the solution to the problems of borrowing and adaptation of foreign experience to national conditions, the isolation of those aspects of experience that can be used to improve the strategy and tactics of education in their countries.

The significance of Comparative Education as a separate branch of science (and of its methods and principles in science and educational research) shows, in particular the fact that today there is the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES). The Council is the largest international non-governmental organization that supports strong ties with UNESCO. Its members are as individual states or groups of countries (eg French-speaking and Scandinavian Association of Comparative Education).

Significant contribution to the development of the theoretical problems of educational integration made by major research centers Comparative Education – Institute for International Educational Research in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), International Institute for Educational Planning in Paris, the International Centre of Pedagogical Studies at Sevres (France), Institute of Comparative Education in Salzburg (Austria), International Institute for the Study of the foreign pedagogy at Columbia University (USA), etc.

As a long-standing partners, Russia and China are actively addressing the problem of socio-economic recovery and jerk and should therefore be in a peaceful, stable and harmonious international environment. Undoubtedly, the further rise in the level of Sino-Russian relations in the public interest of both countries. Intensification of mutually beneficial cooperation not only promotes the development of China and Russia, but is important in promoting peace and stability.

In relations between China and the Russian Federation the last 10–15 years there have been major changes: expanding and gaining communication and cooperation between our countries in various spheres of social and cultural life, including education. China and Russia are parties to the Asia-Pacific Forum of Bologna and one aimed at creating a single world education, so they share a number of key issues related to the need to reform national education systems and the formation of new educational paradigms.

It is clear that addressing these issues in a global economy, science, culture, the most developed countries in the world can not exclude, on the one hand, current trends in the development of world educational process, and with another - national characteristics of educational systems of Russia and China, as in the comparative educational research should be considered as the link between national trends and the interaction of different states. In the broader comparative educational research the evolution of education must be seen against the background of socio-economic, political and cultural development of the studied countries and regions. Therefore, in the ongoing prospective study, we analyze the education systems of China and Russia will inevitably require a certain output for proper pedagogical framework, although the object and the object of our research rather local. Its main content is a comparative analysis of the organization and content of training in veterinary medicine in the Chinese and Russian universities in order to identify common and differences and, more importantly, to establish and justify a positive experience and the possibility of borrowing and adaptation to national circumstances of each of our countries. However, conducting such a study even suggests a major scientific and methodological basis of these problems.

Note that the implementation of comparative educational research of Chinese and Russian education meets the general direction of development of international cooperation between our countries as defined in particular in the laws of the PRC "On Education" Programme for Reform and Development of Chinese Education (1993), the ruling Communist Party of China and the State Council "On deepening education reform and promote a comprehensive quality parameters of education" (1999), documents the Chinese Association for International Exchanges in the fields of education, instruction implementing Deng Xiaoping's "Education must be a person to upgrade to the world and the future", as well as in Russian Federation Law "On education", the Programme of development of continuous pedagogical education for 2001–2010, Concept of Modernization of Russian Education for the period 2010 and others.

A study in the first stage of our research study of works by Russian and Chinese scientists comparativists (B. Wolfson, M. Boguslavsky, G. Kornetov, Z. Malkova, K. Salimov, Hunley Shu, Zhou Nanchzhao, etc.) has proven the need for mandatory integration of socio-cultural and mental specificity of our countries and peoples.

Following the Russian scientists, G. Kornetov and M. Boguslavsky [1, 2], who proposed the theory of civilizational approach, the study of specific training of professional personnel listed above, we propose to take into account the characteristics of the Far Eastern and Russian civilization, dedicated to the works of these scholars, inherent in these civilizations, particularly the formation and development of educational theory and practice.

Thus, according to G. Kornetov, Far eastern countries` pedagogy (and within the first Chinese), focusing on the holistic perception of the human spirit and life, and considering the use of all the phenomena of life, transforming life itself into a means of education, aimed to make a living unity of all aspects of human cultural practices, aim at education the whole person [1]. The Russian scientist is right, when pointed out that the Confucian view of education as a tool that can improve human nature, was decisive for the Far Eastern pedagogical tradition.

Pedagogical theory and practice of the Far Eastern civilization has always been very receptive to ideas and experiences as another culture (=”inokulturnye”). Thus, the desire to combine advantages of the national and Western culture in China in the second half of XIX century. Gave rise to the formula of "Chinese knowledge – the essence of the Western occupation – a tool."

Describing the pedagogical traditions of Russia as a local civilization, G. Kornetov consider long and controversial path of its development, which influenced the current state of the educational system and teaching science in the Russian Federation. There is no doubt that, in conducting our research will need to take into account these features.

In addition civilization characterized above, we propose to use in their research and also a paradigmatic approach. Pedagogical paradigm is translated into the language of pedagogy ideal person sought by the company and its separate groups (social class, ethnic, professional, etc.) and representatives.

Proving that the dynamics of the genesis of pedagogical knowledge represented the dialectic of the interrelated development of educational thought and practice, proponents of these approaches (M. Boguslavsky, G. Kornetov, N. Nazarov and others [3–5, 6]) emphasize the need to address the internal logic of the development of pedagogical theory in terms of appearance, interaction, and the withering away of pedagogical paradigms. Explaining the mechanism of the development of pedagogical knowledge and based on it to educational models, M. Boguslavsky and G. Kornetov argue that this development is not by replacing the old knowledge (models) as a result of the new paradigm shift, but is formed as an alternative but divergent in nature, which makes possible the simultaneous coexistence of several paradigms. We will try to trace it in the course of our investigation.

In conclusion, we note that the above features of the organization rather pedagogical studies identified in the first phase of our work on the dissertation may be updated and supplemented in subsequent stages of development problems.

A bibliography

1. Cornetov, G. Pedagogy of the great civilizations of the East // Free education. –

– Vol. 4. – M., 1993. – P. 39–45.

2. Boguslavsky, M., Cornetov, G. The problem of the conceptualization of teacher knowledge in the twentieth century / Historical and pedagogical research and development strategy of the modern problems of education. – M., 1993. – 226 p.

3. Cornetov, G.B. On the paradigm of humanistic pedagogy // Free education. –Vol. 2. – M., 1993. – P. 20–27.

4. Boguslavsky, M., Kornetov G. On the pedagogical paradigms // Master. – 1992. – May. – P. 15–21.

5. Boguslavsky, M., Kornetov, G. Educational paradigm: history and prognosis // Master. – 1992. – September. – P. 13–20.

6. Nazarov, N. The methodology of historical periodization and teaching process in order to predict the development strategy of educational systems / Historical and pedagogical research and development strategy of the modern problems of education. – M., 1993. – P. 48–50.