Pedagogical Cultures

There is not one form or model of professional development better than all others and which can be implemented in any institution, area or context. Schools and educators must evaluate their needs, cultural beliefs and practices in order to decide which professional development model would be most beneficial to their particular situation. It is clear in the literature that different factors within a workplace such as school structure and school culture, can influence the teachers’ sense of efficacy and professional motivation.

T. R. Guskey ( 1995) argues strongly the importance of paying attention to context so that the “optimal mix” of professional development processes can be identified and planned. In other words, professional development has to be considered within a framework of social, economic and political trends and events.

At the base of the classification, evolved by L. N. Kolesnikova (1991), is the key value, which determines the models of professional development and the paradigm type – pedagogical cultures, i.e. the basic conceptual scheme.

Sciento-Technocratic Paradigm. The basic value in this paradigm is cognitive experience, information, knowledge, but not the human him / herself. The gist of the paradigm is best expressed in the motto “Knowledge is power” (F. Bacon). Within this paradigm’s framework, lack of knowledge is equated with inadequacy. Adding to the student’s store of knowledge is equated with empowering him/her. A teacher’s hesitance in giving an answer, his attempts to think aloud, or weigh the pros and cons are interpreted as signs of incompetence. When checking on a student’s knowledge, the teacher’s main aim is to find out where the “gaps” are. A good teacher uses this information to fill in the “gaps”; a bad one uses it to shame the student. The student’s discomfort that follows in both situations is viewed positively, the belief being “Drill hard, fight easy”. Pedagogical systems based on this paradigm often boast well-informed students. It is the basis for the programmed learning system, and the algorithmisation techniques. What seems to be overlooked is the high cost of the knowledge thus acquired, which all concerned – the child, the parents, the teacher – have to pay.

Humanitarian Paradigm. “Humanitarian” means focused on the individual’s problems; oriented to problem-solving experience; generally, to experience obtained in the course of activity (“activity-based experience”). Experience of activity is the key value in this paradigm. Its essence can be formulated in the motto, “Learning is power”. What is most important here is not knowledge as such, but the mode of its acquisition. In this paradigm, there are no right or wrong answers; there are only different answers (“You are also right!”). The difference of opinions and evaluations is viewed as the starting point for obtaining knowledge. The humanitarian paradigm is based on the principle of equality of different values and meanings / senses. It is a human’s birthright to be continuously exploring the world. What can be the object of assessment and evaluation is solely the result of knowledge acquisition, not the individual him/herself. Here the teacher is interested in what the student knows, rather than in what (s)he does not. The content component in the paradigm is experiential by experience gained in the course of activity. Although this paradigm is very attractive, it is not without some pitfalls expecting the teacher. If he fails to really understand the student, (s)he loses contact altogether; indeed, (s)he loses the ability to maintain the dialogue, which is the only instrument of exploring the world.

Esoteric Paradigm. Esoteric knowledge is the mystique knowledge whose source is unknown; achieving the absolute knowledge. In the first paradigm the truth is relative; in the second, it is multiple; in the third one it is absolute. It is not to be learned step by step; it is to become instantly aware of. The motto here is: “Awareness is power”. Consequently, the key value here is experience acquired by means of participating in relationships involving both the emotional sphere and the values (emotion-and-value-based experience).

To illustrate the difference in the approaches, which are inherent in the paradigms above, let us resort to the following metaphor. When walking along the street in pitch darkness, we flash our torch on some of the objects around us. We may see objects, or just catch glimpses of them. Esoteric, then, can be likened to a flash of lightning: it momentarily floods with brilliant light the whole environment whose photographic image in its entirety becomes imprinted on our mind. What follows, is the gradual understanding of the details of the picture. The terms inherent in the paradigm are enlightenment, “eye-opener”, “dawning upon”, and insight. The esoteric paradigm techniques appeal to the very essence of a human, to the consciousness, awareness. The chief outcome here is developing an attitude, taking a stand / stance, interiorizing a set of values.

As is seen from the above, the key values in the pedagogical cultures under consideration are the cognitive, activity-based and emotion- and-value-based experience, respectively. The classification is instrumental in understanding the various types of teacher mentality, the attitudes displayed by teachers who may be involved in international projects.

The definition of culture borders on understanding it as a creative process. For these researchers, culture is, first and foremost, the creative ability, the very essence of the human. Pedagogical culture should be considered as a specific form of creative assimilating of all the components of educational activities. This being so, it makes the evaluation of the “newness” of programmes and projects especially important. The activity- based approach to culture defines it as a sum total of all the means of transforming the human creative force into socially relevant values.

Among the various approaches to identifying the degree of newness used to evaluate innovative projects, the systemic one seems to be the most promising. The degree of newness is determined according to the quantity and quality of changes introduced into the system: desultorily / unsystematically changing some elements of the system, introducing small improvements, developing new rules for employing the traditional pedagogical means / tools; changing groups of elements, combinations of traditional pedagogical means, improving their sequence/logic; changing the whole system of pedagogical means and tools, adding new ones to the system; developing rules for and techniques of their application; functional growth of the system; radical transformation of the whole system, changing the paradigm. In accordance with the above, all programmes and projects can be divided into (1) improvement-level ones; (2) invention-level ones; (3) heuristic-level ones; (4) innovation-level ones.

Поиск по сайту: