CC BY
29УДК 37.013
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ КОНЦЕПЦИИ И МОДЕЛИ ВОСПИТАНИЯ
Лепешев Д.В., Мукат А., Штибен С., Ишмухаметов А. Кокшетауский университет имени Абая Мырзахметова, (г. Кокшетау, Республика Казахстан)
Аннотация. В настоящей статье описываются основные концепции образования, определяющие принципы и особенности систем воспитания, а также описаны различные модели воспитания. Раскрыт философский аспект осмысления воспитания, который раскрывает то общее, что характерно для практики воспитания разных стран, народов, цивилизаций и эпох.
Ключевые слова: концепции воспитания, модели воспитания, взаимодействие воспитателя с воспитанником.
MODERN CONCEPTS AND MODELS OF PARENTING
Lepeshev D., Mukat A, Stieben S, Ishmukhametov А.
KU named after Abai Myrzakhmetov (Kokshetau, Kazakhstan)
Annotation. This article describes the basic concepts of education, defining the principles and features of education systems, as well as describes various models of education. The philosophical aspect of understanding upbringing is revealed, which reveals what is common, which is characteristic of the practice of upbringing in different countries, peoples, civilizations and eras.
Key words: upbringing concepts, upbringing models, teacher-pupil interaction.
In a narrow sense, education is viewed as a process of purposeful and systematic influence of the subject of education on an object in order to instill in him qualities that correspond to educational goals and objectives.
Depending on the philosophical concept that determines the principles and features of education systems, its various models are distinguished. Philosophical understanding of upbringing reveals what is common that is characteristic of the practice of upbringing in different countries, peoples, civilizations and eras.
1. The idealistic model of education goes back to Plato. His followers considered upbringing as the creation of such an environment for the educated, thanks to which the eternal and unchanging ideas embedded in the soul would reach their blossoming, which should have predetermined the formation of a full-fledged personality.
Modern followers of this model argue that upbringing should be based on a high intellectual-content level of interaction between the educator and the pupil, who, as a result of this interaction, masters the achievements of human culture. It is believed that the main thing in upbringing is the self-realization of the personality of the educated person, and the skill of the educator lies in revealing the deep potential of the soul of the educated person.
2. The realistic model proceeds from the provisions on the need to transfer to the educated person indisputable knowledge and experience in a prepared form, and the truths and values of culture - through the division of a holistic reality into an object display, taking into account the age capabilities of students.
3. The materialistic model seeks to maximally take into account the objective circumstances in which the educational process takes place. At the same time, it belittles the role of knowledge about the person himself in the course of his upbringing, does not recognize his right to irrationality in individual actions and life in general.
4. A pragmatic model in the process of upbringing, the educator must accustom the pupil not to passive adaptation to real conditions, but to actively search for ways to improve his well-being, up to transforming reality in the direction he desires.
5. The anthropocentric model is based on the understanding of the essence of man as an open system, constantly changing and renewing simultaneously with the surrounding world renewing in the process of his active activity. The upbringing process, according to this model, cannot be limited by norms or focused on the ideal and, therefore, cannot have completion. The upbringing process should be structured so that the pupil can improve in all the diversity of human nature.
6. The societal model is focused on the fulfillment of a social order as the highest value for a particular group of people, which implies the appropriate selection of the content and means of education in small social groups (family, reference group, school collective) and large (social, political, religious communities, nation, people.
7. The humanistic model seeks to take into account the personal and individual characteristics of the pupil. The teacher must accept the pupil as he is, help him realize the goals of development (the process of self-actualization of a person) and contribute to their achievement (personal growth).
8. The model of free upbringing is aimed at shaping the interests of the educated and creating conditions for a free choice of ways to satisfy them, as well as life values. The leading goal of such upbringing is the formation of a person who values freedom and at the same time bears responsibility for his life, for the choice of spiritual values.
9. The technocratic model is based on the position that the upbringing process must be strictly directed, controlled and controlled, technologically organized, and therefore reproducible and leading to projected results.
General characteristics of education models. Various educational models emerge within educational paradigms. In the world educational process, there are currently four main models of education: traditional, rationalistic, humanistic (phenomenological), non-institutional. Let's give a general description of these models.
1. The traditional model of education is a model of systematic academic education as a way of transmitting to the younger generation the universal elements of the culture of the past and present. The student is considered as an object to whom a system of generalized knowledge, skills and abilities must be transferred.
2. The rationalistic model of education puts at the head not the content of education, but effective ways of assimilating knowledge by students. This model assigns learners a relatively passive role. By acquiring certain knowledge, skills and abilities, they acquire an adaptive "behavioral repertoire" necessary for an adequate life arrangement in accordance with social norms, requirements and expectations of society. In the rationalistic model, there is no place for such phenomena as creativity, independence, responsibility, individuality.
3. The humanistic (phenomenological) model of education at the center of the educational process puts the student's personality and his development as a subject of life. It is focused on the development of the student's inner world, on interpersonal communication, dialogue, on psychological and pedagogical support in personal growth.
This model assumes a personal nature of training, taking into account the individual psychological characteristics of students, a respectful attitude towards their interests and needs.
4. Non-institutional model of education focused on its organization outside social institutions, in particular educational institutions. This is education in "nature", in the conditions of parallel schools, using the Internet system, distance learning, "open schools", "open universities", etc.
Bibliographic list
1. Ayzerman V. Humane education in an open society: problems of education. - Biysk, 1995.
2. Antropov A.K. The unity of the administrative (municipal) and educational components of the humanization of the living environment of the personality of a schoolchild, student / A.K. Antropov, L.N. Golubeva // Humanization of education is an imperative of the XXI century // Second All-Russian. scientific-practical conf. (March 25-27, 1997). Section I. - Perm, 1997.
3. Asmolov A.G. Practical psychology is the basis of individualization and differentiation of education. - M., 1991.
4. Asmolov A.G. Psychology of Personality. Principles of general psychological analysis. - M.,
1990.
5. Berulava A.N. Humanization of education: directions and prospects // International Congress on the problem of humanization of education. - Biysk, 1995.
Лепешев Дмитрий Владимирович, научный руководитель, кандидат педагогических наук, профессор кафедры социально-педагогических дисциплин, Кокшетауский университет имени Абая Мырзахметова (Республика Казахстан, г.Кокшетау).
Мукат А., магистрант по ОП «Педагогика и психология», Кокшетауский университет имени Абая Мырзахметова (Республика Казахстан, г.Кокшетау).
Штибен С., магистрант по ОП «Педагогика и психология», Кокшетауский университет имени Абая Мырзахметова (Республика Казахстан, г.Кокшетау).
Ишмухаметов А., магистрант по ОП «Педагогика и психология», Кокшетауский университет имени Абая Мырзахметова (Республика Казахстан, г.Кокшетау).
e-mail: d_lepeshev@mail.ru
Дата поступления статьи: 10.12.2020
© Д.В. Лепешев, А. Мукат, С. Штибен, А. Ишмухаметов
