Upbringing – the purposeful forming or assistance in the self-development of a personality
Date
2017
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Łódź : Wydawnictwo Społecznej Akademii Nauk
Abstract
У сучасній педагогічній теорії існують різні підходи до розуміння сутності виховання як фактору розвитку особистості. У статті проаналізовано різні підходи до диференціації концепцій, стратегій, моделей і парадигм виховання (Ш. Амонашвілі, Г. Балл, Р. Квасниця, Г. Корнетов, Є. Ямбург, та ін.). З’ясовано особливості розуміння в їх контексті сутності і значення виховання, його ролі у розвитку особистості. Показано, що в основі різних концепцій і моделей виховання лежать відмінності у розумінні сутності людської природи: директивні, монологічні концепції ґрунтуються на песимістичній оцінці природи людини (дитини), недирективні, діалогічні - на позитивному сприйнятті природи людини, вірі в її конструктивне начало.
In modern theory of upbringing there are different approaches to the understanding of essence and meaning of this phenomenon in the development of a personality. Recently in psychology and pedagogics various attempts have been made to comparatively analyze and classify different concepts of upbringing. They all are determined by the objective necessity to systemize pedagogical ideas about ways and methods of the organization of upbringing, by the necessity of creation of the specific coordinate system which would help to be oriented in the variety of educational systems and concepts of the past and the present. Existence of different conceptions of upbringing as a rule is determined by distinctions in basic ideas about the nature of a child (man). In the context of European cultural tradition it is possible to distinguish two opposite ways of understanding the nature of people: pessimistic and optimistic. The first one consists of mistrust to people, perception of them as asocial and destructive. The opposite one consists of optimistic perception of people, faith in their undoubtedly-positive and good structural beginning. In accordance to the basic setting connected with the essence of a person, the following questions should be answered: “What should be done with this essence to make a person better?” and “How a person should be brought up?”
In modern theory of upbringing there are different approaches to the understanding of essence and meaning of this phenomenon in the development of a personality. Recently in psychology and pedagogics various attempts have been made to comparatively analyze and classify different concepts of upbringing. They all are determined by the objective necessity to systemize pedagogical ideas about ways and methods of the organization of upbringing, by the necessity of creation of the specific coordinate system which would help to be oriented in the variety of educational systems and concepts of the past and the present. Existence of different conceptions of upbringing as a rule is determined by distinctions in basic ideas about the nature of a child (man). In the context of European cultural tradition it is possible to distinguish two opposite ways of understanding the nature of people: pessimistic and optimistic. The first one consists of mistrust to people, perception of them as asocial and destructive. The opposite one consists of optimistic perception of people, faith in their undoubtedly-positive and good structural beginning. In accordance to the basic setting connected with the essence of a person, the following questions should be answered: “What should be done with this essence to make a person better?” and “How a person should be brought up?”
Description
Педагогіка. Концепції виховання
Keywords
upbringing, concepts of upbringing, nature of people, forming, manipulation, facilitation, виховання, концепції виховання, природа людини, маніпуляція, фасилітація, формування
Citation
Galuziak V. Upbringing – the purposeful forming or assistance in the self-development of a personality / Vasyl Galuziak, Iryna Kholkovska // Dyskursy o kulturze. Discourses on Culture. – Łódź : Wydawnictwo Społecznej Akademii Nauk, 2017. – № 7. – S. 95-118.