CC BY
28
Scientific and Practical Article
UDC 159.98+378.1+316.61 © R. R. Gasanova, N. N. Setyaeva, R. I. Khoteeva, M. R. Arpentieva, 2022 doi: 10. 24412/1999-6241-2022-188-79-86
5.3.4 Pedagogical Psychology, Psychodiagnostics of Digital Educational Environment 5.3.8 Correctional psychology and defectolody
Socio-psychological and spiritual-moral problems of neurodidactics
in inclusive practice
Renata R. Gasanova \ Candidate of sciences (in Psychology); [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4641-0019 Natalia N. Setyaeva 2, Candidate of Sciences (in Pedagogy), Associate-Professor, Associate-Professor, Department of Theory and Methods of Physical Education; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0181-3647
Raisa I. Khoteeva 3, Candidate of sciences (in Psychology), associate-professor, associate-professor of the department of Social and Legal Psychology; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4580-7241
Mariam R. Arpentieva 4, Doctor habilitat of Psychology, Associate-Professor, freelance researcher; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3249-4941
1 Faculty of Pedagogical Education, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, 1, bld. 52, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, GSP-1,119991, Russia
2 Surgut State Pedagogical University, 10/2,50 years of the Komsomol str., Surgut, Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra, Russia 3K. E. Tsiolkovskiy Kaluga State University, 22/48 Razin str., Kaluga, 248023, Russia
42900, boul. Edouard-Montpetit, Montreal, Quebec, H3T1J4, Canada Abstract
Introduction. Relevance and research problem. Socio-psychological and spiritual-moral aspects of the application of neurotechnologies in modern education ("neuroeducation") is one of the least studied areas. Neuroeducation is the application of neurological knowledge in the educational environment, as well as the development, application and correction of invasive (neurointerfaces) and non-invasive neuro(digital)technologies. Socio-psychological problems of the application of neurotechnologies in modern education are associated with the directed destruction of traditional educational relations, their transformation into a relationship mediated by neurointerfaces and other control devices for students, the removal of teachers and mentors from education, their replacement with artificial intelligence, which reproduces programs set by the creators and owners neurointerfaces and other neurotechnological devices and technologies. Therefore, socio-psychological problems are closely related to spiritual and moral problems: the creation of a posthuman means the destruction of a human, and this, in turn, means the destruction of humanity and, apparently, the rejection of all human attributes, including dignity, freedom etc. The aim of the research is to analyze the socio-psychological and spiritualmoral problems of neurodidactics in inclusive education. The practical significance of the research is associated with the assessment of the risks and benefits of neuroeducational technologies in inclusive education, the theoretical significance is associated with an attempt to integratively comprehend neurotechnologies in didactic interaction within the framework of the inclusive education system. The novelty of the research is connected with the combined analysis of the socio-psychological and spiritual-moral aspects of the application of neurotechnologies in didactic inclusive systems. Materials, Results and Discussion. In the modern world, the life and development of people with disabilities are no longer viewed as atypical, non-standard, exclusive precedents. They began to act as issues requiring solution of the ways of their socialization / education and training, support and development in the specific conditions of the life of children and adults with disabilities and special educational needs. Many changes are taking place thanks to the introduction of neurodigital technologies, which have potentially very great prospects in solving the problems of overcoming social isolation (exclusion and segregation) of people with disabilities. Conclusions. Prospects for neurodigital technologies in inclusive didactic interaction are associated with providing schoolchildren and students with disabilities with opportunities to correct existing disorders and developmental delays in order to build productive and effective relationships with other members of society. This allows people with disabilities to achieve not only self-realization, but also self-actualization. However, the use of neurodigital technologies is significantly limited and can cause significant harm if, in their development, use and improvement, the socio-psychological and spiritual-moral aspects of such "improvement" and correction are not taken into account, if the goal of training is not a person as a subject of culture, but a posthuman hybrid, a biorobot controlled from the outside using invasive and non-invasive devices / neurointerfaces.
Keywords: neuroeducation; neurodidactics; neurodigital technologies; artificial intelligence systems; neurodigital culture; transhumanism; developmental deformations; people with disabilities; inclusive education
Citation: Gasanova R. R., Setyaeva N. N., Khoteeva R. I., Arpentieva M. R. Socio-psychological and spiritual-moral problems of neurodidactics in inclusive practice. Psychopedagogy in Law Enforcement. 2022. Vol. 27, No. 1(88). Pp. 79-86. https://doi.org/10. 24412/1999-6241-2022-188-79-86
Key points
1. The most pressing problems of inclusive education are problems of a socio-psychological and spiritualmoral plan: in the focus of inclusive relations are the problems of a person and human relations. Posthuman, as it is projected by transhumanism and promoted by neuropedagogy, is the denial of man, the destruction of humanity as a rejection of all human attributes, including dignity and freedom, as well as the erosion of the notions of normality and the deactualization of competencies that allow people with certain physical, psychological, social, and cultural characteristics and needs to live and develop, helping each other and ourselves.
2. Neurodidactics of our time is an area of research and development in the field of creation, application and correction of neurodigital technologies. The main innovative potential of neurodidactics is associated with the development, use and improvement of neurodigital devices of invasive (neurointerface) and non-invasive types. The capabilities of these technologies in modern education are significantly limited: these technologies are capable of causing significant harm to people with disabilities, education and society as a whole, since their design, implementation and management practically do not take into account the socio-psychological and spiritual-moral aspects offered to people with disabilities " improvements "and correction of their activities. The purpose of such didactics is not a fully functioning person (normotypical or a person with disabilities) as a subject of culture, but a posthuman hybrid - a biorobot controlled from the outside with the help of invasive and non-invasive devices.
3. The search for ways to help people with disabilities is located within several basic models: the model of compassion (charity), the model of isolation (segregation) and the model of socio-cultural expediency (inclusion and integration). Each model has its own limitations and possibilities, but the general logic of the movement reflects the desire of society to humanize relations. Within the framework of these models, digital and neurodigital technologies created and used to compensate for defects and deviations in development and functioning can significantly help people with disabilities and special educational needs, but can provide them with opportunities to feel themselves not just consumers of services and objects of training, education and social care, but also by subjects, bearers of duties, and not only rights.
4. Modern education around the world is collapsing and systematically collapsing, the use of spiritually-moral and socially-psychologically correct neurodigital technologies in inclusive education is more a question of the future than of the present: researchers record the "death" of schools and universities and the refusal of states and communities themselves from care about normo-typical people, not to mention caring for people with disabilities. State and non-state (volunteer) systems of social support
cannot compensate for these destructive processes, their functions as agents of society and agents of the state are in conflict with each other and the interests of corporations that destroy the existing education system in favor of the ideas of supervisory capitalism.
5. Technological saturation of inclusive education with neurodigital technologies requires an understanding of the leading risks and main opportunities for inclusion, an understanding of how diverse and often certain neurotechnologies can be applied in an inclusive environment.
Introduction
Relevance, significance and essence of the problem. Socio-psychological and spiritual-moral aspects of the application of neurotechnologies ("neurodidactics") in modern inclusive education is one of the least studied areas. This area can be designated as inclusive neuroeducation: the use of neurological knowledge and skills, technologies and devices in an inclusive educational environment, including the development, application and correction of invasive (neurointerfaces) and non-invasive (other) neurotechnologies.
Despite the rather large flow of works on the problems of neuropedagogy, the questions of its application in inclusive practice are practically not raised [1-6]. Very little attention is paid to the problems of introducing neurodigital technologies [7-12], including in the context of supporting independence and other aspects of educational and professional activity of educational subjects [13-15]. The advantage of the available works is attempts to systematize the possibilities and limitations of neurodigital technologies [16-19], including analyzing the psychological and ethical aspects of their application in general, special and inclusive education.
Socio-psychological problems of the application of neurotechnologies (or, more precisely, neurodigital technologies) in modern inclusive education arise in connection with the directed destruction of traditional educational relations, their transformation into a relationship mediated by neurointerfaces and other devices for controlling students and students, withdrawal from education of teachers and mentors, their replacement by artificial intelligence that reproduces programs set by the creators and owners of neurointerfaces and other neurotechnological devices and technologies.
These problems of inclusive education are therefore closely related to spiritual and moral problems: the creation of a posthuman means the destruction of a person, and this, in turn, means the destruction of humanity as a rejection of all human attributes, including dignity, freedom, honor, etc. means the erosion of the concepts of the normality of development and functioning and the de-actualization of competencies that allow people with certain physical, psychological, social, cultural characteristics and needs to live and develop, helping each other and themselves.
The aim of the research is to analyze the socio-psy-chological and spiritual-moral problems of neurodidactics in inclusive education.
The practical significance of the research is associated with the assessment of the risks and benefits of neuroeducational technologies in inclusive education.
The theoretical significance is associated with an attempt to integratively comprehend neurotechnologies in didactic interaction within the framework of the inclusive education system.
The novelty of the research is connected with the combined analysis of the socio-psychological and spiritualmoral aspects of the application of neurotechnologies in didactic inclusive systems.
Materials, Results and Discussion
In the modern world, the life and development of people with disabilities have ceased to be considered as atypical, non-standard, exclusive precedents, they began to act as issues requiring solution regarding the ways of their socialization / education and training, support and development in specific living conditions of children and adults with disabilities (special health features, SHF and special educational needs, SEN). Many changes have occurred due to the widespread introduction of digital technologies, which have potentially very great prospects in solving the problems of overcoming social isolation (exclusion and segregation) of people with disabilities, SHF and SEN, providing them with opportunities and channels for building social relations with other members of society, individuals, groups and organizations, allowing to achieve not only self-realization, but also self-actualization.
On the way to solving these issues, models, with their capabilities and prospects and with their threats and risks for educational subjects with disabilities and the community: scientists distinguish, in particular, a model of compassion (charity), a model of isolation (segregation) and a model of socio-cultural expediency ( inclusion and integration) [20-23].
Compassion as a model for helping people with disabilitiesand problems of neurodigitalization of education. In itself, the model of compassion in relation to people with disabilities is a reflection of the principle of altruism in its pragmatic-utilitarian understanding. It is aimed at ensuring compassionate, humane treatment in the training and education of people with disabilities, regardless of the type of limitations and developmental characteristics of a person. Education is focused on teaching the simplest competencies, including service and working professions, which allow for the implementation of the tasks of social adaptation in the community. Good intentions from a socio-cultural point of view, however, face problems of political, economic and technological plans: there was no requirement to ensure equal / priority rights and opportunities for people with disabilities, and charity itself and its state funding guaranteed the most minimal
requests. Pedagogical technologies also developed in part and were not the subject of widespread discussion and implementation. In addition, the attitude towards people with disabilities often wore cruel, violent forms [24, p. 154].
Here serious spiritual and moral problems of this model are revealed. These problems are well known to any "charity", any volunteers, patrons and charitable foundations: the person who is helped is instructed to be grateful and humble, to fulfill the will of the benefactor, including understanding what is good for the beneficent. If the beneficiary demonstrates a lack of understanding or disobedience, then benevolence ends: the right to choose his own path in life, to make and correct his own mistakes and to explore the world, is seen as interfering with the correct assessment of goodness. In addition, the philanthropist often does not bypass good creations and himself: as a rule, using charity as an excuse and a way of profit. At the same time, even in the presence of state support, including financial support, charitable people with disabilities usually do not observe a noticeable increase in the desire to obtain a professional education, social, psychological and economic independence. The "beneficiaries" respond to the philanthropists with a system of claims and expectations associated with rent and other manipulative attitudes (consumerism). The need to lead an independent lifestyle, be responsible and free, make your own choice and achieve your own goals, self-actualize, is not formed or developed within the framework of this model: compassion limits development by lowering the level of aspirations and limiting life prospects, the formation of learned helplessness, rental-consumer strategies ignoring vocational education as a social lift.
Digital and neurotechnologies are of little help here, although judging by the way some people with disabilities use them, many are trying to use digital technologies not only to expand and fill their own world with social connections, but also to try to contribute to the development of mutual understanding between people with disabilities and normotypical people. Along the way, however, they most often advocate the model of humanity and compassion, without going beyond the proposed model of compassion for the role of recipients of assistance and support.
Exclusive model of education and problems of neurodigitalization. Within the framework of the isolation model, correctional education is proposed: its implementation is faced with the opposition of the technological provision of education and upbringing and the socio-cultural and economic need to differentiate educational programs by types and levels of impairments has caused the need for significant financial costs for education, including in the boarding type of work with a child or an adult with SHF / SEN. In general, boarding schools successfully compensate for the existing health limitations and other capabilities of a person with
disabilities, using for this the work of qualified specialists and special educational technologies. At the same time, an educational institution in this situation performs not only an educational function, but also the function of social support for parents / family members of disabled people.
However, thanks to this system of assistance to people with disabilities, the growth in the number of students at universities is not too great: special (correctional) education is based on a differentiated approach, taking into account the potential of the student, including the creation of special, sparing conditions and requirements, aimed at acquiring social competencies , necessary for solving practice-oriented problems and ensuring the socialization of students, the formation of motivation for learning, and the subject requirements are blurred, as are the ideas that isolation (life in a closed micro-society in a state of overprotection) can only exacerbate the problems of such children, and not solve their. Segregation leads to the fact that graduates of correctional boarding schools for the most part are infantile / maladapted and need care, to which they were accustomed to boarding school conditions. There is also an important political contradiction: although special education ensures the realization of the right to education, it interferes with the implementation of other, civil rights of students and students with disabilities and educational institutions, creates barriers to professional and career growth, other autonomous activity (V. I. Lubovsky, T. A. Basilova, 2008; T. V. Furyaeva, 2017) [25; 26].
The spiritual and moral context of this model is also twofold: targeted assistance to people with specific disabilities is combined with their isolation from normotypical, "normal" people. At the same time, people with disabilities are perceived as inferior, not reaching that level of development. What the normotypical have achieved. At the same time, the question of what a person with or without disabilities is like as an entity, how he can find, actualize and realize himself as a human being, is often not worth it. The concept of "norm" and, especially, "standard", blurs the boundaries of understanding the rights and duties of a person in relation to himself and the world, the boundaries of understanding that the uniqueness or typicality of his life situation requires awareness and research, comprehension of the inner meaning and purpose.
In general, digital, including neurodigital, technologies can significantly help people with disabilities, SHF and SEN, since many of them are developed specifically to compensate for defects and deviations in development and functioning. However, by themselves, they do not solve the issue of providing a person with disabilities with the opportunity to feel not just a consumer of services and an object of training, education and care, but also a subject, a bearer of responsibilities, and not just rights. Neurointerfaces and other neurodigital technologies and prostheses using them cannot by themselves solve the
problems of upbringing and training a person: until it is realized, restored as a basic, the truth that a person is brought up and taught by another person, the introduction of digital technologies has limited opportunities [27-29; thirty]. However, in order to restore this truth, it is necessary to restore the value of the person himself / herself, his / her life, development, completely lost by the consumer society on the way to "sustainable development" and the "golden billion". In a world where even normotypical people are systematically assigned to the "dirty billion", caring for people with disabilities with their limitations, problems and suffering appears to be at least problematic.
Inclusive model of education and problems of neurodigitalization. So far, the third model is just beginning to approach the solution of this problem is inclusion. Inclusive education is focused on the feasibility and prospects for people with disabilities and for the community as a whole, paying attention to the issues of socialization of people with disabilities and their integration into society as equal, more or less fully functioning citizens. The task of integrating people with disabilities into the system of preschool, general secondary and higher education brings fundamental changes in the policy and technology of education.
However, there are still a lot of spiritual and moral problems with inclusion: one of the leading ones is associated with "forcing" normotypical people to live together with people with disabilities: despite the fact that the coexistence of very different people is a reality, the long-term practice of exclusion and segregation has led to the fact that that the isolation of people with disabilities is perceived as a norm, and attempts to bring normotypical and non-normotypical people closer together is an attempt to encroach on the boundaries of existence and resources of normotypical people. People with disabilities and their families also sometimes perceive inclusion as an undesirable, coercive phenomenon that takes away from them those few preferences that special education with its functions of social support brought with it. In the works of G. Feuser, A. Zander, G. Raiser, U. Heberlin and O. Shpeck, S. V. Alekhina, M. R. Arpentieva, T. A. Basilova, V. I. Lubovsky, T. V. Furyaeva, etc. the importance of creating and developing an inclusive (educational) culture, technologies and environments of inclusion (I. N. Simaeva, A. O. Budarina, S. Sundkh, 2019; T. V. Furyaeva, 2017) is noted in order to compensate for the differences " starting "positions on the way of realizing development goals [20; 26]. This can lead to a decrease in the level of psychological helplessness and in the formation of a stable professional orientation, the ability and readiness to be involved in industrial relations through developed social networks, etc.
Such educational opportunities become available, in addition to the development of general pedagogical
technologies, thanks to the development and implementation of neurodigital technologies (I. N. Simaeva, A. O. Budarina, S. Sundkh, 2019; U. Haeberlin, 2017) [20; 31]. Now it is already beginning to become clear that it is necessary to introduce modules and blocks of disciplines and competencies for working with people with disabilities and in the field of inclusive education into integrative programs for the training of teachers and psychologists, other specialists in the system of inclusive education (A. O. Budarina, I. N. Simaeva, A. S. Chupris, E. V. Shakhtorina, 2018; A. O. Budarina, O. V. Parakhina, 2017) and, in particular, competence in the application and development of digital education technologies, including neuroeducation technologies, neurodigital technologies [32; 33].
However, inclusive education in itself requires significant costs for training specialists and for the development and implementation of its technologies, as well as work with families of people with disabilities, and the introduction of digital, neurotechnologies, can be an even more costly area of the activity, the readiness for which in modern communities and states are absent. So, at present, even the institution of tutoring remains in a state of unpreparedness, which is necessary for systemic socio-medical-psychological-pedagogical support of inclusion. The problems of assistance and prevention in situations of victimization and stigmatization of people with disabilities and their parents or guardians have not been resolved, in addition to psychological problems, there are problems of legal protection of people with disabilities, etc. (I. N. Simaeva, A. O. Budarina, S. Sundkh, 2019; L. Khadar, 2017) [20; 34].
The use of digital and, including neurotechnologies, therefore, is more a question of the future and a question of projects and plans than reality: at the present time, when secondary and higher education is curtailed almost all over the world and systematically collapses, when researchers fix the "death" of schools and universities It is overly optimistic to expect that significant resources will be devoted to mass preparation for life of people with disabilities.
In general, the socio-psychological and spiritualmoral aspects of the application of neurotechnologies ("neuroeducation") in modern inclusive education are closely related. Harmonization of relations in inclusive education and its technological saturation, including neurotechnologies, require an understanding of the leading risks, difficulties and main opportunities, the "benefits" of inclusion, as well as an understanding of how diverse and often one or another neurodigital technologies can be used in an inclusive environment [35-37]. Thus, many researchers associate the prospects of neurotechnological developments for inclusive education with the creation,
application and improvement of invasive (neurointerfaces) neurotechnologies; however, non-invasive prosthetics, etc., can also play an important role here. [38-41]. One thing is important: the turn of attention of teachers, cybernetics, neuroscientists, psychologists to the socio-psychological and spiritual-moral problems of neurodigitalization, to work on the creation of neurodigital culture - the culture of development, application and improvement of neurodigital technologies in education and other spheres of human life in ways that are not destructive for a person as a subject of culture, supporting and helping him to improve and fully function as a person, partner, student and professional.
Conclusion
Socio-psychological problems of using neurodigital technologies in modern inclusive education are closely related to the spiritual and moral: it is important that education retains its status as a process and result of interaction between people as subjects of culture, so that mentoring relationships are harmoniously complemented by relations of parity, dialogical interaction, so that education targets students as well , and teachers on the development of their uniqueness, self-actualization and self-realization.
In inclusive education, the risks of removing teachers and mentors from educational processes and results, attempts to replace them with artificial intelligence are especially noticeable. These problems of inclusive education are therefore closely related to spiritual and moral problems: the creation of a posthuman and the "improvement" of a person as a competitor, and not a user of digital technologies, means the destruction of a person. The rejection of the attributes of the human, including dignity, freedom, honor, etc., the erosion of the notions of the normality of development and functioning, leads to de-actualization of competencies that allow a wide variety of people to live and develop, helping each other and themselves.
Research prospects. Further studies of this problem can be associated with the development of a "map" of socio-psychological and spiritual-moral problems of neurodigitalization in general, special and inclusive education, including in the context of the types of created and created neurodigital devices and the technologies behind them.
No less relevant and significant is the problem of developing and implementing recommendations and programs that make it possible to increase the readiness and ability of modern teachers to participate in the development, application and improvement of neurodigital technologies for education and related practices (psychological, medical, social support).
References
1. Trnikova J. Innovative approaches to educational process. Ad Alta. Journal of interdisciplinary research. Czech Republic, Hradec Kralové: AkademickésdruzeniMagnanimita. 2012. Vol. 2, No. 1. Pp. 62-64. URL: https://www.magnanimitas.cz/ADALTA/0201/papers/A_ trnikova.pdf.
2. Vetulani J. Neurodidactics. Teaching and teaching friendship. Torun: Torun publ., 1993. 1-138 p. (In Poland).
3. Kirillova A. I. Neuropedagogical approach to teaching foreign languages. Humanitarian readings "Sevastopol Harbor". Materials of the scientific and practical conference. Sevastopol, 2019. Pp. 95-98. (In Russ.)
4. Malsagova M. Kh., Alekseeva A. A., Mestoeva E. A. Some aspects of students' neurodidactics. World of science, culture, education.
2020. No. 4(83). Pp. 261-262. (In Russ.)
5. Arpentieva M. R., Kassymova G. K., Lavrinenko S. V., Tyumaseva Z. I., Valeeva G. V., Kenzhaliev O. B., Duvalina O. N., Kosov A. V. Ecological education in the global and supplementary education system. Bulletin of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2019. Vol. 3(379). Pp. 158-168.
6. Gulyaeva I. V. Neurodidactic foundations of dialogical pedagogical interaction. Actual problems of pedagogy and education: collected articles. International scientific-practical conference "Actual problems of pedagogy and education" (Bryansk, October 25-26, 2018). Bryansk, 2018. Pp. 113-119. (In Russ.)
7. Devletov R. R. Neurodidactics and teaching of language disciplines in a pedagogical university. Intercultural communications. Theses of the international scientific conference (Simferopol, April 06, 2017). Simferopol, 2017. Pp. 59-60. (In Russ.)
8. Dzyatkovskaya E. N. Neurodidactics: myths and reality. Methodological guidelines for the development of modern scientific and didactic thought. Collection of scientific papers of the All-Russian network scientific conference (Moscow, November 21-29, 2018). Moscow, 2018. Pp. 78-88. (In Russ.)
9. Podlinyaev O. L., Mornov K. A. Fundamentals of neuropedagogy. Proceedings of the Bratsk State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2015. Vol. 1. Pp. 186-191. (In Russ.)
10. Ruff G. V. Fundamentals of neurodidactics in the development of creative abilities of cadets of military institutes. International Academic Bulletin. 2019. No. 9(41). Pp. 14-16. (In Russ.)
11. Sirotyuk A. L. Neuropsychological and psychophysiological support of training. Moscow, 2003. 282 p. (In Russ.)
12. Solovieva O. V. Psychological and pedagogical analysis of the use of neurodidactics in teaching adults. Humanization of education. 2018. Vol. 4. Pp. 102-108. (In Russ.)
13. Kasymova G. K., Valeva G. V., Setyaeva N. N., Flindt N., Arpentieva M. R. Socio-psychological problems of smart education. Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series "Psychology". 2021. No. 2. Pp. 45-56. (In Russ.)
14. Arpentieva M. R., Retnawati H., Akhmetova T. A., Azman M. N. A., Kassymova G. K. Constructivist approach in pedagogical science. Challenges of Science 2021. Vol. IV. Pp. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.31643/2021.02.
15. Kassymova G. К., Stepanova G. A., Stepanova O.P., Menshikov P. V., Arpentieva M. R. and Merezhnikov A. P., Kunakovskaya L. A. Self-development management in educational globalization. International Journal of Education and Information. 2018. No. 12. Pp. 171-176.
16. Ivanov P. V. Neurodidactic aspect of the formation of information culture in adult learners. Problems of modern pedagogical education. 2019. No. 65-4. Pp. 162-165. (In Russ.)
17. Karpenko M. P., Davydov D. G., Chmykhova E. V., Kachalova L. M., Loginov V. V. Neurodidactics. Moscow, 2019. 282 p. (In Russ.)
18. Malsagova M. Kh., Malsagov A. A., Ivanov P. V. To the question of neurodidactic technologies. World of science, culture, education.
2021. No. 2(87). Pp. 64-66. (In Russ.)
19. Mashkina E. N., Samofalova E. V. Teaching a foreign language for students of technical specialties using the principles of neurodidactics: problem statement. Bulletin of the Zaporiz'kiy National University. Philological sciences. 2017. No 1. Pp. 153-160. (In Russ.)
20. Simaeva I. N., Budarina A. O., Sundkh S. State and attractiveness of inclusive and special education in Russia and the Baltic countries. Baltic region. 2019. Vol. 11, No. 1. Pp. 76-91. https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2019-1-6 (In Russ.)
21. Bagadaeva O., Golubchikova M., Kamenskaya E., Arpentieva M. Ecological aspects of the education and resilience of preschool teachers. E3SWeb of Conferences. 2021. Vol. 138. Pp. 1-10.
22. Kassymova G. K., Yurkova M. G., Zhdanko T. A., Gerasimova J. R., Kravtsov A. Yu., Egorova J. V., Gasanova R. R., Larionova L. A., Arpentieva M. R. Personal self-development in the context of global education: the transformation of values and identity. Bulletin of National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2019. Vol. 6, No. 382. Pp. 195-200.
23. Stepanova G., Demchuk A., Tashcheva A., Gridneva S., Yakovleva J., Zaichikov Ya., Arpentieva M. Inclusion as an environmental imperative of educational activity in university, secondary and preschool education. E3SWeb of Conferences. 2021. Vol. 138. Pp. 1-9.
24. Wang H. L. Should be included in the Mainstream Education Provision?: a critical analysis. International Education Studies. 2009. Vol. 2, No. 4. Pp. 154-160.
25. Lubovsky V. I., Basilova T. A. On the prospects of special psychology. Cultural-historical psychology. 2008. No. 3. Pp. 51-54. (In Russ.)
26. Furyaeva T. V. Pedagogy of inclusion abroad: theoretical and methodological discourse (review). Bulletin of Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University. 2017. Vol. 7, No. 6. Pp. 152-174. https://doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1706.10. (In Russ.)
27. Kostromina S. N. Introduction to neurodidactics. St. Petersburg, 2019. 182 p. (In Russ.)
28. Malsagov A. V., Lezina V. V. Adult neurodidactics: monograph. Pyatigorsk, 2017. 185 p. (In Russ.)
29. Malsagova M. Kh. Prerequisites for a neurodidactic paradigmatic shift in learning theory. World of Science, Culture, Education. 2020. Vol. 2(81). Pp. 264-266. (In Russ.)
30. Trinitatskaya O. G., Bocharov S. V., Zakharova L. G. Neurodidactics as a factor in adult learning. Bulletin of North Caucasus Humanitarian Institute. 2018. Vol. 1(25). Pp. 124-129. (In Russ.)
31. Haeberlin U. Inklusive Bildung. Sozialromantische Traeme. In: M. Gercke, S. Opalinski, T. Thonagel (eds.). Inclusive education and social exclusion. Connections-contradictions-consequences. Wiesbaden, 2017. Pp. 87-99.
32. Budarina A. O., Simaeva I. N., Chupris A. S., Shakhtorina E. V. Readiness for mediation as the competence of bachelors in the humanities. Samara Scientific Bulletin. 2018. Vol. 7, No. 2(23). Pp. 224-229. (In Russ.)
33. Budarina A. O., Parakhina O. V. Diversification of an Educationalist: Redesigning Postgraduate Programmes in Response to Public Need. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS. 2017. Vol. 29. Pp. 117-123. URL: https://www.futureacade my.org.uk/publication/EpSBS/KazanFederalUniversityRussia (accessed: 19.05.2020). http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.08.02.15.
34. Khadar L. Access to Justice and the Right to Education for Children with Disabilities: a Report Exploring Barriers to Access to Justice. The Context of Inclusive Education. Ten European Countries. 2017. URL: http://www.academia.edu/34262854 (accessed: 19.05.2018).
35. Alekseeva A. A. Neurodidactic foundations of academic education. Implementation of the competence-based approach in the system of professional education of a teacher. Collected materials of the 7th All-Russian scientific-practical conference (Evpatoria, April 23, 2020). Simferopol, 2020. Pp. 3-7. (In Russ.)
36. Gulaya T. M., Romanova S. A. Neurodidactics and its use in teaching foreign languages. Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice. 2017. No. 10-1(76). Pp. 196-198. (In Russ.)
37. Shirshov E. V. Didactics. E-learning. Neural network technologies. Modern development trends. Distance and virtual learning. 2013. Vol. 12(78). Pp. 5-18. (In Russ.)
38. Dubinsky J. M., Roehrig G., Varma S. Infusing neuroscience into teacher professional development. Educational Researcher. 2013. Vol. 42, No. 6. Pp. 318-320.
39. Jensen E. Brain-based learning. The new paradigm of teaching. Thousand Oaks. California, 2008. 266 p.
40. Malsagova M. Kh. Directions and trends in the development of neurodidactics. American Scientific Journal. 2020. No. 43-2(43). Pp. 9-11.
41. Spitzer M. Neuroeducation. How to Use the Potential of the Brain in the Learning Process. Slupsk, 2013. 245 p. (In Poland).
Submitted: 08.11.2021; approved after reviewing: 25.11.2021; accepted for publication: 30.11.2021. The authors' alleged contribution: all the authors have made an equal contribution to the publication.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Научно-теоретическая статья
УДК 159.98+378.1+316.61 © Р. Р. Гасанова, Н. Н. Сетяева, Р. И. Хотеева, М. Р. Арпентьева, 2022 doi: 10. 24412/1999-6241-2022-188-79-86
5.3.4 Педагогическая психология, психодиагностика цифровых образовательных сред 5.3.8 Коррекционная психология и дефектология
Социально-психологические и духовно-нравственные проблемы нейродидактики в практике инклюзии
Рената Рауфовна Гасанова \ кандидат психологических наук, доцент; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4641-0019 Наталья Николаевна Сетяева 2, кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры теории и методики физического воспитания; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0181-3647
Раиса Ивановна Хотеева 3, кандидат психологических наук, доцент кафедры социальной и юридической психологии; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4580-7241
Мариям Равильевна Арпентьева 4, доктор психологических наук, доцент, фрилансер; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3249-4941
1 Московский государственный университет имени М. В. Ломоносова, 119991, Москва, Ленинские горы, 1, стр. 52, ГСП-1, Россия
2 Сургутский государственный педагогический университет, 628417, Сургут, ул. 50 лет ВЛКСМ, 10/2, Ханты-Мансийский АО -Югра, Россия
3 Калужский государственный университет им. К. Э. Циолковского, 248023, Калуга, ул. Разина, 22/48, Россия 42900, Монреаль, Квебек, бульвар Эдуард-Монпети, Н3Т У4, Канада
Реферат
Введение. Социально-психологические и духовно-нравственные аспекты применения нейротехнологий в инклюзивном, специальном и общем образовании («нейрообразование») — одна из наименее изученных областей современных педагогики и психологии. Нейрообразование — применение в образовательной среде нейрологических знаний, а также разработка, применение и коррекция инвазивных (нейроинтерфейсов) и неинвазивных (иных) нейротехнологий. Социально-психологические проблемы применения нейротехнологий в современном образовании связаны с направленным разрушением традиционных образовательных отношений, их превращением в отношения опосредованного нейроинтерфейсами и иными устройствами управления учащимися и обучающимися, изъятия из образования педагогов и наставников, их замена искусственным интеллектом, репродуцирующим программы, задаваемые создателями и собственниками нейроинтерфесов и иных нейротехнологических устройств и технологий. Социально-психологические проблемы поэтому тесно связаны с проблемами духовно-нравственными: создание постчеловека означает разрушение человека, а это, в свою очередь, и разрушение человечности и, по-видимому, отказ от всех атрибутов человеческого, включая достоинство, свободу и т. д. Цель исследования — анализ социально-психологических и духовно-нравственных проблем нейродидактики в инклюзивном образовании. Практическая значимость исследования связана с оценкой рисков и выгод нейрообразовательных технологий в инклюзивном образовании, теоретическая значимость обусловлена попыткой интегративного осмысления нейротехнологий в дидактическом взаимодействии в рамках системы инклюзивного образования. Новизна исследования состоит в совокупном анализе социально-психологических и духовно-нравственных аспектов применения нейротехнологий в дидактических инклюзивных системах.
Материалы, результаты и обсуждение. В современном мире жизнь и развитие людей с ограниченными возможностями здоровья (далее — ОВЗ) перестали рассматриваться как атипические, нестандартные, эксклюзивные прецеденты. Они стали выступать как требующие решения вопросы путей их социализации / воспитания и обучения, поддержки и развития в конкретных условиях жизнедеятельности детей и взрослых с ограниченными возможностями здоровья и особыми образовательными потребностями (далее — ООП). Многие изменения происходят благодаря внедрению нейроцифровых технологий, имеющих потенциально весьма большие перспективы в решении задач преодоления социальной изоляции (эксклюзии и сегрегации) людей с ОВЗ. Однако применение нейроцифровых технологий существенно сужено и может нанести значительный вред в случае, если при их разработке, использовании и совершенствовании не будут учитываться социально-психологические и духовно-нравственные аспекты такого «улучшения» и коррекции. Выводы. Перспективы нейроцифровых технологий в дидактическом инклюзивном взаимодействии связаны с предоставлением школьникам и студентам с ОВЗ ресурсов коррекции имеющихся нарушений и отставаний в развитии для построения продуктивных и эффективных отношений с остальными членами социума. Такая коррекция и профилактика вторичных и третичных дефектов инвалидизации позволяет людям с ОВЗ достичь не только самореализации, но и самоактуализации. Вместе с тем применение нейроцифровых технологий существенно сужено и может нанести значительный вред, если целью обучения станет не человек как субъект культуры, а постчеловеческий гибрид, биоробот, управляемый извне при помощи инвазивных и неинвазивных устройств / нейроинтерфейсов.
Ключевые слова: нейрообразование; нейродидактика; нейроцифровые технологии; системы искусственного интеллекта; нейроцифровая культура; трансгуманизм; деформации развития; люди с ограниченными возможностями здоровья;
инклюзивное образование
Для цитирования: Гасанова Р. Р., Сетяева Н. Н, Хотеева Р. И., Арпентьева М. Р. Социально-психологические и духовно-нравственные проблемы нейродидактики в практике инклюзии // Психопедагогика в правоохранительных органах. 2022. Т. 27, № 1(88). С. 79-86. https://doi.org/10. 24412/1999-6241-2022-1-88-79-86
Основные положения
1. Наиболее актуальные проблемы инклюзивного образования носят социально-психологический и духовно-нравственный характер: в фокусе инклюзивных отношений находятся проблемы человека и человеческих отношений. Постчеловек, каким его проектирует трансгуманизм и продвигает нейропедагогика, есть отрицание человека, разрушение человечности как отказ от всех атрибутов человеческого, включая достоинство и свободу, а также размывание понятий нормальности и деактуа-лизация компетенций, позволяющих людям с теми или иными физическими, психологическими, социальными, культурными особенностями и потребностями жить и развиваться, помогая друг другу и себе самим.
2. Нейродидактика современности — область исследований и разработок в сфере создания, применения и коррекции нейроцифровых технологий. Основной инновационный потенциал нейродидактики связан с разработкой, использованием и совершенствованием нейроцифровых устройств инвазивного (нейроинтерфейсных) и неинвазивного типов. Возможности данных технологий в современном образовании существенно ограниченны: данные технологии способны нанести значительный вред людям с ОВЗ, образованию и обществу в целом, поскольку при их проектировании, внедрении и управлении ими практически не учитываются социально-психологические и духовно-нравственные аспекты предлагаемых людям с ОВЗ «улучшений» и коррекции их деятельности. Целью такой дидактики является не полноценно функционирующий человек (нормотипичный или человек с ОВЗ) как субъект культуры, а постчеловеческий гибрид — биоробот, управляемый извне при помощи инвазивных и неинвазивных устройств.
3. Поиск путей помощи людям с ОВЗ располагается в рамках нескольких основных моделей: модель состра-
дания (благотворительности), модель изоляции (сегрегации) и модель социально-культурной целесообразности (инклюзии и интеграции). Каждая модель имеет свои ограничения и возможности, но общая логика движения отражает стремление общества к гуманизации отношений. В рамках этих моделей цифровые и нейроцифровые технологии, создаваемые и применяемые в целях компенсации дефектов и отклонений в развитии и функционировании, могут существенно помочь людям с ОВЗ и ООП, но могут предоставить им возможности ощутить себя не просто потребителями услуг и объектами обучения, воспитания и социальной заботы, но и субъектами, носителями обязанностей, а не только прав.
4. Современное образование во всем мире сворачивается и планомерно коллапсирует, применение духовно-нравственно и социально-психологически корректных нейроцифровых технологий в инклюзивном образовании — скорее вопрос будущего, чем настоящего: исследователи фиксируют «смерть» школ и университетов и отказ государств и самих сообществ от заботы о нормотипичных людях, не говоря о заботе о людях с ОВЗ. Государственные и негосударственные (добровольческие) системы социальной поддержки не могут компенсировать эти разрушительные процессы, их функции агентов общества и агентов государства входят в противоречие друг с другом и интересами корпораций, разрушающих сложившуюся систему образования в угоду идеям надзорного капитализма.
5. Технологическое насыщение инклюзивного образования нейроцифровыми технологиями требует осмысления ведущих рисков и основных возможностей для инклюзии, понимания того, насколько разнопла-ново и часто могут применяться в инклюзивной среде те или иные нейротехнологии.
