LECTURE №12

LECTURE №12

PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES IN TEACHING ACTIVITIES.

Theme:Pedagogical Technologies in Teaching Activities.

The student has knowledge and experience about education, instruction and teaching methods; recognizes and understands the importance of social interaction in a child's learning; has knowledge about a child's development and learning; is consciously aware of the teacher's role in the learning process of child; has an understanding of music therapy to help children with difficulties.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework to understand and describe the kinds of knowledge needed by a teacher for effective pedagogical practice in a technology enhanced learning environment. The idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was first described by Lee Shulman (Shulman 1986) and TPACK builds on those core ideas through the inclusion of technology. Punya Mishra, full professor, and Matthew J. Koehler, associate professor, both at Michigan State University, have done extensive work in constructing the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra 2008, Mishra & Koehler 2006).

The TPACK framework argues that effective technology integration for teaching specific content or subject matter requires understanding and negotiating the relationships between these three components: Technology, Pedagogy, and Content. A teacher capable of negotiating these relationships represents a form of expertise different from, and (perhaps) broader than, the knowledge of a disciplinary expert (say a scientist or a musician or sociologist), a technology expert (a computer engineer) or an expert at teaching/pedagogy (an experienced educator).

The TPACK framework highlights complex relationships that exist between content, pedagogy and technology knowledge areas and may be a useful organizational structure for defining what it is that teachers need to know to integrate technology effectively (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).

Technology is storming campuses across North America. This takeover is occurring with the same seeming urgency with which technology is penetrating every aspect of life. The hype surrounding computer technology and its educational applications is reminiscent of the introduction of technologies throughout history - big promises, many disappointments, some unintended consequences, some disastrous effects.

The automobile provides a good lesson. Early motorists were lured into the car market by the promises of adventure and freedom through mobility. The folks selling us vehicles for the information highway are promising an improved quality of life and learning. To avoid atmospheric degradation and the techno-travellers' variation on gridlock, we need to take the time to ask some serious questions.

Our teaching has a history, too. Traditional pedagogical approaches emphasized the teacher as knowledge broker and the student as receiver of knowledge. The work was about content mastery. The "new" pedagogy - some refer to it as critical pedagogy, others as social constructivism - emphasizes the student as learner in a social context and knowledge as produced within a social context. This student-centred pedagogy seems to have been more thoroughly adopted at the elementary level where teachers are working to accommodate individual differences and build social systems. It is our argument that the pedagogy that characterizes much of the teaching at the post- secondary level is presently inadequate for evaluating the opportunities and the dangers of educational technology. Insights from student-centred elementary contexts along with ground-breaking work with educational technology at the post-secondary level provide the basis for our insistence that in considering educational technology, pedagogical concerns and support for professional development should receive top priority.

Technology in the World - Promises and Paranoia

The introduction of new technologies on a mass scale in North America has relied upon a widespread and systematic marketing campaign, one that equates the adoption of new technology with achievement (or increasingly, retention) of the "good life", and ties the failure to adopt new technology with dire individual and social consequences. Historically, a utopian vision has ushered in technological change. It is not until we find ourselves virtually enslaved to it (Mander, 1991) cites the examples of the automobile and the telephone) that we start to identify the wide range of implications, intended and unintended, of its use. The same corporations are using the same marketing plan to urge post-secondary educators to adopt educational technologies - promises and paranoia. There are promises that inadequate pedagogy will be made good by the technology; there is paranoia that without technology societal slippage in international trade will continue, and lowered standards of living will be the consequence for post-secondary graduates who will not have the skills necessary for decent employment.

We are told that North American economies are becoming less competitive internationally. Declining trade advantages are supposedly behind the deficit and the accompanying cuts in social spending. The "good life" is threatened. The only way to revive it is through technological advances. Rising unemployment is blamed on a lack of job related training, and computer skills are portrayed as the means by which individuals can participate in the technological revolution. For this economic revival, we are told we must re-tool our educational institutions to produce a highly skilled workforce.

This marketing strategy ignores the fact that jobless growth has been one consequence of new technologies the introduction of which has been accompanied by the globalization of capital, the internationalization of work, and the downsizing of government.

Rather than delivering the "good life," the impact of computer technology on the economies of the industrialized world has been dehumanizing. Jeremy Rifkin documents the grim story in his book, The End of Work - The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post Market Era. Between 1989 and `93, more than 1.8 million workers in the manufacturing sector in the United States lost their jobs. The steel industry cut its workforce in half in fifteen years. In 1850, 60 per cent of the working population of the United States was employed in agriculture; today it is less than 2.7%. The numbers from Germany, Finland, Canada and Japan are equally sobering.

If you think these workers have landed on their feet in new technologies jobs, or in the expanding service sector, Rifkin suggests you think again. Of the 1.8 million displaced manufacturing workers, one third found new jobs in service, but at a 20 per cent drop in pay. These low-paying jobs are often part-time, and without benefits. Guy Standing refers to the trend of replacing well-paying permanent blue-collar jobs with poorly paying, part-time, temporary, service jobs as the "feminization of labour" (Standing, 1989, pp. 1077-1095). This change in the nature of work has enabled major corporations to pay $22 million less in wages over the decade of the 1980s.

The jobs that haven't been automated out of existence in the industrialized countries have been moved out of reach of their incumbent workers moved off shore to poor countries where poor wages and poor working conditions put more pressure on the remaining workers in Canada and the US to keep their expectations low. This movement has itself been facilitated by the automation of financial work and the virtual world of banking supported by technology.

Promises of the "good life" via the computer revolution have not been realized for most people. The winners of this revolution are referred to by Rifkin as "the new cosmopolitans," as he records the fact that in 1953 executive compensation was 22 per cent of corporate profits; in 1987, 61 per cent. In 1979 the CEO earned 20 times the wage of the average manufacturing worker; in 1988, the CEO took home 93 times as many dollars as her/his employee. And in some macabre sense of balance, the number of people living in poverty has grown remarkably, too. In 1989, 31.5 million Americans lived in poverty, in 1991 it was 35.78 million, in 1992, up to 36.9 million (Rifkin, 1995).

Technology has definitely delivered on its promise of efficiency and productivity growth. Market forces and globalization have turned these productivity gains into handsome profits for a very small sector of society. We have to wonder what substance lies behind the promises associated with emerging technologies in education, and whether the distribution of advantage will be as uneven as it has been in the manufacturing sector.

The silicon snake-oil sellers (Stoll, 1995) do not draw to our attention the dangerous consequences of technology. The same automobile that promised freedom and adventure has fouled the neighbourhood, snarled our adventure with congestion, threatened our supply of fossil fuels, made a mockery of "rush" hour, and killed many of our citizens. Chernobyl, the greenhouse effect, PCBs in breast milk, the Love Canal, and asbestos come to mind as we reflect on our technological "progress".

The naive view of technology as value neutral has been challenged by scholars who have demonstrated that technology is conceived and constructed within specific social circumstances and has implications for social relations. Ursula Franklin makes a distinction between holistic technologies and prescriptive technologies, the former being technologies that enable egalitarian relationships by their use, the latter being technologies that are founded on hierarchical relationships.

Holistic technologies are normally associated with the notion of craft. Artisans, be they potters, weavers, metal- smiths, or cooks, control the process of their own work from beginning to finish. (Franklin, 1990, p. 18)

In contrast, prescriptive technologies entail a division of labour whereby "the making or doing of something is broken down into clearly identifiable steps" (Franklin, 1990, p. 24). A worker or group of workers carries out each step in isolation from other workers performing different steps. It is this very combination of the division of labour and atomism of tasks that necessitates a supervisory relationship. The distinction between prescriptive and holistic technologies is one between control-related and work-related production processes.

Franklin counsels us to attend not only to what technology enables, but also to what it prevents. The efficiency and potential for precision associated with prescriptive technologies have produced products that have raised our standards of living while at the same time creating a "culture of compliance" through inappropriate application of this model to virtually every sphere. She warns of the danger of imposing a prescriptive model on education, for example:

If there ever was a growth process, a process that cannot be divided into rigid predetermined steps, it is education. (Franklin, 1990, p. 29)

Postman notes that "the uses made of any technology are largely determined by the structure of the technology itself... functions follow from its form" (Postman, 1993, p. 7). Encoded within the technology are criteria for social relationships.

Just as technologies, or specific uses of technologies can separate bosses from workers, they can create insiders and outsiders in other ways. Rifkin's data speaks to the winners and losers of the technologically restructured economy. Postman identifies the insiders who "can do" when he observes, "those who cultivate competence in the use of a new technology become an elite group that are granted undeserved authority and prestige by those who have no such competence" (Postman, 1993, p. 9). Insider and outsider status along gender lines is documented by Wajcman who notes, "As with science, the very language of technology, its symbolism, is masculine" (Wajcman, 1991, p. 156). The earliest contacts children have with computers leave a masculinist imprint - from the home-computer usually purchased for the boys in the family to the harassment of girls in schools by boys monopolizing computers, from the war-game based video games and software culture to the association of computing with mathematics rather than language. Girls are either denied access to this sphere or not encouraged to become involved in it the way that (especially middle-class) boys are (Hickling-Hudson, 1992, pp. 1-21). In the world of work, the kind of contact women have with computers tends to reinforce women's marginalization. Computer technology reflects and reinforces existing relations of power in society.

Postman has special concerns about the impact that technology in the classroom can have on social relationships.

In introducing the personal computer to the classroom, we shall be breaking a four-hundred-year-old truce between the gregariousness and openness fostered by orality and the introspection and isolation fostered by the printed word. Orality stresses group learning, cooperation, and a sense of social responsibility ... Now comes the computer, carrying anew the banner of private learning and individual problem-solving. Will the widespread use of computers in the classroom defeat once and for all the claims of communal speech? (Postman, 1993, p. 17)

Educational Computing: Elementary Insights

The promise and paranoia of technology in society are duplicated in our schools, with zealots guaranteeing educational transformation, and critics warning of the development of a generation of antisocial nerds. If technology has earned mixed reviews in society, what is its school report card?

The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project in the United States, launched ten years ago to study the productive use of technology in schools reported recently that "What happens in the classroom is largely the responsibility of the teacher. More or better technology isn't enough" (Fisher et al, 1996, p. 215). Fisher et al concluded that the problems holding back the use of technology in schools are social, not technological (1996, p. 219). If technology alone could improve teaching and learning, their research would have documented improvements in student learning in all subject areas, improvements they say were simply not to be found. They cautioned schools against the rush to "glittery application", recommending instead "technology use ... grounded firmly in curriculum goals, incorporated in sound instructional process, and deeply integrated with subject-matter content" (Fisher et al, 1996, p. 200)

At the post secondary level, too, researchers are cautious about crediting technology with educational improvement. Schierman and Jones acknowledge that there is an assumption that technology is de facto beneficial to educational endeavors. However, they conclude from comprehensive, large-scale analyses of reports of benefit (e.g. Wilkenson 1980; Clark 1983) "that claims of large gains in achievement are not warranted and, indeed, that the attribution of measurable gains in achievement to the use of any educational technology should be viewed with caution, since factors other than those cited as the cause of achievement gains may be responsible" (Schierman and Jones, 1996, p. 65).

Nonetheless, the technology has its champions who say that achievements online are equal or superior to those generated in face-to-face situations (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 27). Harasim and her colleagues argue that the primary goals of the virtual classroom are to improve both the access to educational opportunities, and the quality of the educational process itself. They claim that in the majority of cases, these goals were achieved (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 88).

Furthermore, they argue that, "Active learning is a major outcome of learning networks" (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 29). Indeed, they seem to claim that because of technology, learning environments are more democratic, teachers and students are more respectful of group knowledge, interaction is increased, and is of better quality (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 28).

Chris Dede is another who extols the virtues of virtual education claiming that,

The innovative pedagogies empowered by these emerging media, messages, and experiences make possible an evolution ...into an alternative instructional paradigm: distributed learning. In particular, advances in computer- supported collaborative learning, multi-media/hypermedia, and experiential simulation offer the potential to create shared 'learning-through-doing environments' available any place and any time. (Dede, 1996, p. 4)

Why Bother?

The implications of the technology are complex, the jury is not yet in on the benefits. As busy educators, from Kindergarten to post-secondary levels, the choices about technology in our classrooms are troublesome. We could ignore it, committing ourselves to the classical tradition. We could leap on the bandwagon and hope we can determine where it is going. We could be fatalistic, acknowledging the inevitability of the technological takeover of our social and intellectual lives and admitting to our own powerlessness in the face of it. We could engage critically, applying our own skills of scholarship and accepting the responsibility for advocacy that accompanies our chosen profession.

Assuming that technology will not be absent from the future of the students we teach, we support Penley and Ross's call for the creation of a technoliterate critical mass. While acknowledging that "the odds are firmly stacked against the efforts of those committed to creating technological countercultures," they argue that there is a "pressing need for more, rather than less, technoliteracy - a crucial requirement not just for purposes of postmodern survival but also for the task of decolonizing, demonopolizing, and democratizing social communication" (Penley and Ross, 1991). Technoliteracy is the work of the classroom.

Technology as Trojan Horse

Post-secondary institutions are experiencing their own "new economy" of competition, shortages of resources, and drive for "market share" in the form of recruitment of students and "increased productivity" of faculty. Technology is promised as a solution to these campus problems, one that will reduce costs, improve teaching, provide evidence of the "currency" of the institution, and help graduates develop the job specific skills that will make them employable in Rifkin's brave new world.

Technology, of course, will not necessarily do any of these things. It does seem however, to attract endowments and contributions from corporations, and it seems to be an aspect of campus infrastructure that even cash-strapped institutions will consider as an investment. It may also introduce enough tension and dissonance in the traditional classroom as to provide opportunity for teachers and students to examine the way they work together. There is some evidence that when one change occurs, all things suddenly seem to be open to review.

In arguing that technological change is ecological, says that

It is not possible to contain the effects of a new technology to a limited sphere of human activity...one significant change generates total change (Postman, 1993, p. 18).

Critical Engagement With the Technology

The ACOT reviewers reported that their project provided an opportunity to demonstrate how children and schools could work differently. They described technology as an engaging medium for student thought and collaboration, and claimed that the smart (our emphasis) use of technology could increase student academic performance and support the acquisition of a whole new set of twenty-first-century competencies (Fisher et al, 1994, p. 29).

What is a smart use of technology, and who are the smart users? Is Harasim correct that active learning is an outcome of online education, or is online learning only productive if it is active? Are teachers who use technology smartly predisposed to democratic, collaborative, problem based pedagogy, or does technology bring these behaviors into the classroom? Can we analyze the impact of technology separate from the impact of teaching with technology? Does improved student learning occur only when technology is introduced along with different teaching practices? What teaching practices are best suited to maximizing the potential of technology to improve student learning? Or more fundamentally, what teaching practices are best suited to improving student learning?

The attributes that Harasim assigns to online learning can and do exist in thriving non-wired classrooms, especially at the elementary level. A similar set of attributes appears as the Principles of Learning established by the Government of the Province of British Columbia, principles intended to "guide all aspects of educational practice including curriculum development, instructional planning and practice, resource selection, school and classroom organization, assessment, evaluation and reporting." These principles are:

Learning requires the active participation of the student

People learn in a variety of ways and at different rates

Learning is both an individual and a group process. (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1993)

It is the expectation of the government, at least theoretically, that in all classrooms learning will be "purposive, reflective, negotiated, critical, complex, situation driven, and engaged" (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1993), emerging technology or no emerging technology.

A closer look at Dede's 'technologically empowered' pedagogies reveals that they are

analogical, case-based, learning-by-doing ... giving learners constructivist experiences, facilitating comprehension and ability to generalize ... structuring group dialogue and decision making, facilitating collective activities. (Dede, 1996, p. 13)

While it may be pointless to have a "what came first" debate about technology and critical pedagogy, we must concede their interrelatedness. It is important to focus our attention on what Fenstermacher calls the "manner and method" (Fenstermacher, 1992), or Postman the "metaphysical and mechanical" Postman, 1995) of teaching. To fail to recognize, as Cuban says, "Our character as human beings and how we teach become what we teach" (Cuban, 1992, p. 9) is to concentrate on the carving tools while ignoring the sculptor.

Martin Haberman puts it bluntly, "No school can be better than its teachers" (Haberman, 1995, p. 777). He calls for teachers to know what they do and why they do it. The technology they use is not neutral, nor is their pedagogy. The ACOT researchers found that well-grounded teachers were positioned to make the most of new tools.

Classroom innovators are often teachers who have strong beliefs about how students can learn, a passion for teaching, and some idea of how technology can help everyone involved to do things a little better or a little differently. (Fisher et al, 1994, p. 207)

And, ACOT indicated, teachers made fundamental changes in their practice.

Over time, ACOT's design changed from computer saturation which supported the existing knowledge transfer approach to learning, to the current emphasis on routine access where technologies are used to support collaborative, project-based knowledge construction. (Fisher et al, 1994, p. 268)

Experienced designers of distance education programs at the post-secondary level concur that good learning experiences for students are the result of careful foresight.

We invite course designers to foster the open-ended, collaborative, and reflective processes that this medium can deliver, while still relying on conventional ISD models as heuristics. Designers need to attend to both the role and the extent of online activities to their total course, as well as seek a match among teacher, learner, format and content. (Berg and Collins, 1996, p. 79)

Further, there are specific teaching behaviors that seem to be influential at the Virtual U. Harasim says

a learner-centered (rather than teacher-centered) model has been found as the best fit online. CMC is meant for the sharing and building of ideas, information and skills among the participants to strengthen knowledge building, integration and application of conceptual information. (Harasim et al, 1996, p. 24)

She devotes considerable attention to the consequences of moving from teacher to facilitator, identifying key behaviors that may or may not exist "offline" but are considered essential to successful teaching online, including setting the stage, monitoring and encouraging participation, forming groups, assigning role responsibilities, moderating and facilitating group processes, establishing norms and grading performance.

While Paulsen acknowledges that "moderators [of computer conferences] will perceive their role ... in light of their basic theories and philosophies toward education," he cites the work of Mason, Forsyth and Brochet in identifying "task roles and socioemotional roles", "organizational, social and intellectual roles" or the contribution of the moderator as "goal setter, discriminator, host, pace setter, explainer, entertainer" to ensure a successful computer conference (Paulsen, 1996, p. 83).

Rohfeld and Hiemstra, too, define the electronic classroom as a place for collaborative learning. They return to the "essence" of learning, plugged in or not.

Teaching through discussion relies on a learner- centered approach, whether the participants meet face to face or on the computer screen. It rests on principles of collaborative learning and egalitarian relationships." (Rohfeld and Hiemstra, 1996, p. 91)

Because helping learners take increasing control over personal learning is a goal for most educational endeavors, computer-mediated conferencing can be supportive of such fundamental educational values. (Rohfeld and Hiemstra, 1996, p. 102)

The preponderance of references to student-centered learning, a democratic learning environment, the shared construction of knowledge and the changing of teaching practices in these reviews of the positive presence of technology on campus persuades us that technology and critical pedagogy have a promising relationship. Still, the improvement of pedagogy is a good end in itself, and critical pedagogy has a role larger than guiding learning online.

Critical Engagement About the Technology

It is not enough for educators to provide students with a map of the information highway. There are critical questions to consider about highways in general, and how humans travel through their environment.

Introducing new technologies into our classrooms is an activity of great consequence, because, like other technological change, it is the re-tooling of the social. Postman reminds us that

New technologies alter the structure of our interests: the things we think about. They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with. And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop. (Postman, 1993, p. 20)

At the same time, in urging us to avoid demonizing technology, Haraway argues that the boundary between the "natural" and the "artificial," i.e. the technological, is entirely political. She points out that we fear the technology that is alien, while we welcome other technology, such as the contact lens, the ball point pen, general anesthesia, convincing ourselves that it is not "really" technology (Haraway, 1991). This confusion characterizes our failure to view technology as social practice and hence in need of the same attention and skepticism that would accompany say, a change in policy with respect to legal drinking age. By recognizing technologies as social in origin and social in consequence, we provide ourselves with a much needed critical foothold to engage with the technology, and to engage about the technology.

Research and debate in classrooms at all levels about the politics of technology should surround any skill building technology curriculum.

The Politics of Post-Secondary Teaching

What support is there for post secondary educators to develop and nurture the beliefs and skills of critical pedagogy that seem to undergird success with emerging technologies? Kearsley argues " ... we are still trying to employ 19th century pedagogical ideas in the 21st century.' ... A vast conceptual gap exists between the kinds of technologically based learning and teaching methods that Chris Dede is talking about and those practiced in almost every classroom and training center. Never mind whether suitable hardware and software is available to teachers and students to carry out such endeavors (it is not). Wholly missing on the part of most teachers is the knowledge of such methods, the opportunity to try out and practice such methods, and the time to think through ways to change the curriculum to incorporate these methods" (Kearsley, 1996, p. 57).

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching conducted a series of surveys with 5,000 faculty members in 1989 to clarify the status of the professoriate and to provide a portrait of American higher education, including the balance between teaching and research. The majority of these faculty reported that they consider teaching to be a central mission of the university and a rewarding activity but that the reward system of their institutions was heavily weighted towards published research rather than effective teaching (Boyer, 1990). In a subsequent study of the relative importance of teaching, research, administration, and service in determining basic salary, involving more than 4,000 full-time, tenure-track faculty in four-year colleges and universities, James Fairweather reports that teaching activities seldom were rewarded. In some cases, time spent on teaching was negatively related to salary. Results showed the dominance of a research-oriented faculty reward structure for each type of institution regardless of professed mission. Reward structures favouring good teaching are lacking even in the four-year liberal arts colleges whose specific mission focuses on undergraduate teaching. Boyer concludes that without significant changes in institutional reward structure, teaching at the post-secondary level will not improve appreciably.

Faculty preparation in graduate school continues to offer very little or no instruction on how to teach. Faculty continue to rely on the teaching methods they have always used - this despite research documenting the need for students to learn actively. More often than not the choice of instructional method is a habitual one rather than a reasoned decision based on the instructional objectives of the course and content for the day.... college teachers teach pretty much as they were taught. (Weimer, 1990, p. xi)

Some institutions have established a specific unit on campus to provide instructional support resources. New hirings include more attention to teaching record than in the past. Still the reward systems remain fundamentally unchanged and does not contribute to an environment hospitable for the Trojan horse of technology. Not only must teaching itself be deemed important, but teaching itself must get serious attention. Once again, the K-12 teachers offer good counsel that the introduction of new technologies must be accompanied by a commitment to teacher development.

The ACOT projects acknowledged that "Successful technology use implies both change of underlying frameworks as well as the incorporation and appropriation of technology benefits into classroom practices" (Fisher et al, 1996, p. 199). They point out that for innovative programs to be successful, training and staff- development components should constitute approximately 30 to 40 percent of the total effort. This effort should include:

structured observation of accomplished practice

reflection on and discussion of teaching and learning

hands-on, collaborative learning

curriculum project development

teacher teams and [administrator] participation

commitment to share with colleagues

follow-up support

support for accomplished teachers

iterative expansion plans (Fisher et al, 1996, p. 243).

Francis Oakley notes that the appropriate use of technology requires organizational change. We suggest that the very organizational change required for the appropriate use of technology in educational contexts is the provision of supports for good teaching. Without time and resources for professional development and without a reward structure that responds to pedagogical development by faculty members, educational technology will be hard pressed to deliver on any of its promises.

Really, Why Bother?

Critical pedagogy facilitates the development of a language of critical discourse. If we use it as a social force we may be able to foster a generation of technoliterate skeptics, equipping our society to engage critically with both the content and the consequences of new technologies. Support for this critical engagement is an important contribution educators can make to efforts to trouble boundaries between insiders and outsiders as society shifts and changes.

Elementary teachers know that hungry children don't learn much beyond the immediate experience of having their basic needs unmet. And yet school lunch programs are hotly contested in school district and state politics. Educational settings mirror, or at least are structured in relation to, the larger social context. The politics of hunger and exclusion in the elementary context have their parallels in post-secondary institutions where institutional practices have remained virtually untouched through the post-war era.

However, recent climate studies and challenges to the canon have revealed institutional practices of discrimination. They, in turn have met with a backlash against so-called political correctness. When considering educational technologies, post- secondary educators need to confront the ways in which technologies are likely to line up in the construction of boundaries between insiders and outsiders on campus, and whether this system break will permit the re-tooling of the social in a liberating way.

It might be that educational technologies bring with them to campus the resources, time, and attention that enable educators to engage critically about the social. It may be that failure to engage critically will enable the emerging technologies to entrench outsider educational and social practices. We see the technoliterate skeptic participating in critical dialogue with her peers as the only person able to function as a citizen in the face of these dilemmas. The role of the educator in modelling this skepticism cannot be overemphasized. Yes, we really should bother.

Menzies refers to the information highway as a restructuring agent (Menzies, 1996). The argument we've made in favour of engaging with educational technology can be summarized rather bluntly: restructure or be restructured!

Pedagogics is a normative science with its own subject of research. The historical development of pedagogical thought shows strong relations with philosophical-anthropological principles and with historical-cultural characteristics. Education today is confronted with, among other things, postmodern developments in society ('Hauslosigkeit') and a change in patterns of youth behavior (from a standard career to a chosen career). For pedagogical analysis, a renewed appeal to reason is advocated. A suitable method is the triadic-pedagogical analysis, which reflects on the parent-child relation in connection with historical-cultural developments.

We can safely assume that everyone is aware that children cannot be left to fend for themselves and that they cannot become adult on their own. However, not everyone is convinced that the process of growing up and gradually growing into society requires an on-going pedagogic relationship based on more or less pronounced concepts of what it is to be a civilized human being. "It can't be allowed!" people cry when they hear that school children are carrying weapons and that they use them on a regular basis. A father will say that his children need a "good education" so that they can come to occupy a "good position" in society. While a mother might say that as far as she is concerned, the most important thing is that her children should be "honest" and that they should learn to be prepared to help one another.

In all of these cases there is clearly some notion of the relationship between education and the socio-cultural environment, of the current state of society and society as it might be, of what should be considered normal or abnormal in terms of human behavior and of the kinds of things that education can strive towards. But not everyone is willing to accept the practical pedagogic consequences that these notions imply -- in other words, the need to maintain an on-going pedagogic relationship in which educators care for the children in their charge, are aware of their responsibility and are also ethically responsible, relating to the surrounding culture critically and consciously and making every effort to enable children to take part in society responsibly and effectively in their own way.

LECTURE №12

LECTURE №12

PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES IN TEACHING ACTIVITIES.

Theme:Pedagogical Technologies in Teaching Activities.

Technology in the World - Promises and Paranoia

If there ever was a growth process, a process that cannot be divided into rigid predetermined steps, it is education. (Franklin, 1990, p. 29)

Postman has special concerns about the impact that technology in the classroom can have on social relationships.

Educational Computing: Elementary Insights

Chris Dede is another who extols the virtues of virtual education claiming that,

Why Bother?

Technology as Trojan Horse

In arguing that technological change is ecological, says that

It is not possible to contain the effects of a new technology to a limited sphere of human activity...one significant change generates total change (Postman, 1993, p. 18).

Critical Engagement With the Technology

Learning requires the active participation of the student

People learn in a variety of ways and at different rates

Learning is both an individual and a group process. (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1993)

A closer look at Dede's 'technologically empowered' pedagogies reveals that they are

And, ACOT indicated, teachers made fundamental changes in their practice.

Experienced designers of distance education programs at the post-secondary level concur that good learning experiences for students are the result of careful foresight.

Further, there are specific teaching behaviors that seem to be influential at the Virtual U. Harasim says

Rohfeld and Hiemstra, too, define the electronic classroom as a place for collaborative learning. They return to the "essence" of learning, plugged in or not.

Critical Engagement About the Technology

Introducing new technologies into our classrooms is an activity of great consequence, because, like other technological change, it is the re-tooling of the social. Postman reminds us that

Research and debate in classrooms at all levels about the politics of technology should surround any skill building technology curriculum.

The Politics of Post-Secondary Teaching

structured observation of accomplished practice

reflection on and discussion of teaching and learning

hands-on, collaborative learning

curriculum project development

teacher teams and [administrator] participation

commitment to share with colleagues

follow-up support

support for accomplished teachers

iterative expansion plans (Fisher et al, 1996, p. 243).

Really, Why Bother?

Consciously or otherwise, educators allow themselves to be guided by all kinds of values regarding human existence on a daily basis and these values are concretized in their dealings with the children they are educating through the setting of various standards. If educators do not allow themselves to be guided by values, there will be no rules or any rules that do exist will be arbitrarily applied. Or there will be a naive faith that with a bit of good will’s everything will work out all right on its own. This kind of attitude means that the child is indeed left to fend for itself and fails to learn to make choices and to be responsible for them. A child may well be able to grow up in such a situation, but is not given enough assistance in the process of becoming an adult. For, like Langeveld, we are also of the opinion that while growing up the child simultaneously engages in a process in which it determines and shapes the values that it has learned or discovered while growing up increasingly independently (Langeveld, 1979, p.23).

In this respect, to continue to think along the lines of Langeveld's pedagogics, we are concerned with development, education and self-forming within a context of relatively constant personal relationships. However, the pedagogic relationship never exists entirely independently of the historical-cultural context. Thus in this respect we also share Imelman's view that the educator and the child being educated are also affected by the formative influence of the cultural environment. Ultimately, the task of pedagogics is to act as a mediator within this process.

Concerned as it is with the legitimization of pedagogic procedures, theoretical pedagogics has always had to account for the reasons for education and even the necessity for education. Pedagogics per se, that is, for while those who are purely concerned with the therapeutic side of pedagogics -- questioning the effectiveness of certain approaches and strategies, such as how to deal with bed-wetting, eating disorders or social anxiety -- are covering important ground for the practice of pedagogics, they are not obliged to account for their actions from the point of view of cultural pedagogics, nor are they considered to have any responsibility towards the child in question in the longer term. However, the discipline of pedagogics per se -- in other words, the aspect of pedagogics that cannot be reduced to psychology (or any other behavioral science) -- cannot evade the issue of legitimization.

Beekman states it in the following lofty terms "A science of education that does not make any value judgments is a valueless science of education." In 1826 Friedrich Schleiermacher, one of the founders of academic pedagogics, went as far as to characterize pedagogics as applied ethics. It is worth bearing in mind that Schleiermacher conceived of ethics as cultural philosophy as an evolutionary process ('progress'), but all the same!

In the tradition of pedagogics as an aspect of the humanities it is common practice to base pedagogical reasoning on statements regarding the human being taken from philosophical anthropology. Some of these statements have since become such established ideas in pedagogic theory that their origin is no longer known. Here, by way of example, we look at the anthropological ideas expounded by Scheler, Portmann and, above all, by Gehlen, who is so widely quoted in the formulation of pedagogic theory. With reference to Nietzsche, Gehlen describes man as "the not-yet-determined animal". Who and what man is or must become still remains to be seen.

According to Gehlen (1940) this fact, which is an unusual phenomenon within nature, makes man "a creature of discipline". This notion implies a clear task for education, suggesting that without the imposition of discipline the human being will not become a true human being or in any event will not be given his due. Similar ideas had already been voiced earlier, by Kant, for example, in his Vorlesung ьber Pдdagogik (1776): "We understand by education namely care, discipline and instruction besides cultivation".' (Kant, 1803, p. 697: "Unter Erziehung nдmlich verstehen wir die Wartung, Disziplin, Unterweisung nebst der Bildung")

The quotation from Gehlen referred to above is one of a series of statements regarding the human individual that attempt to clarify man's special status within nature and in the world. The human being is considered to differ from the animal in that he comes into the world incomplete and has to act in an open world in order to be able to survive, for, unlike the animal, the human being is unable to rely on the safety of innate instincts. A newborn infant is unable to act on its own. It needs assistance and therefore needs to be educated. Yet even when man is fully grown the task is still not complete, for as an adult the individual is called upon to make something of him and must continue to act in order to be able to maintain this position.

However, like children, adults do not need to do this on their own. For -- to pursue Gehlen's argument -- human beings are also characterized by the fact that together they create a culture which functions as a second nature within which they can live a human life especially with the aid of institutions (defined as a collection of models of action and/or patterns of behaviour, examples of which include the state, the legal system, the family, school, work and religion). According to this way of thinking the human individual comes into the world unspecialized and finds within himself, as it were, the mandate to act. Initially the child is unable to act independently and until it can act independently it needs help. Pedagogues adopt this anthropological finding as the rationale for educational action. Thus we come to one of the fundamental principles of pedagogic action, which may or may not be explicitly stated.

Gehlen's anthropology does not stand alone. It exists within the context of a series of anthropologies, being preceded by the work of Scheler and Plessner, among others, which also had an effect on pedagogics, and followed by the work of Sartre, Levinas and Derrida, among others. Research into the fundamental principles of pedagogics might seek to examine such a series of anthropologies not only in terms of the way in which they have been received by pedagogics but also in terms of their (practical) utility.

To a certain extent the history of pedagogics is a history of concepts of man in relation to education. But, one might object, isn't all education highly individual and situational in practice, embedded in the historical-cultural environment, which is not derived from all kinds of general anthropological systems? And to pursue this line of thinking still further: Isn't the theory of education excessively divorced from the practice of education which is essentially self-governing and relatively autonomous? The tradition of the humanities goes as far as to speak of theoretical clarification in retrospect, thereby acknowledging the primacy of practice. To some extent the praxis itself determines its own course (Schleiermacher speaks of the "dignity of praxis").

Given that this is the case, the theory of education is increasingly being assigned the task of critically reflecting on what has already occurred and acting as an 'interlocutor' for future practitioners. One thing is certain, when it comes to the discipline of pedagogics the question of theory and practice can never be reduced to the simple application of scientific conclusions in practice. Among other things, scientific opinions are too divided for this to be possible, there being very little consensus from one paradigm to another. As a result, the scientific nature of pedagogics is constantly subject to discussion. The relationship between philosophy and science has yet to crystallize.

To return to the question of the unique and unrepeatable nature of each educational situation this is another aspect covered by philosophical anthropology that is regularly considered in pedagogics. The various personalistic notions in pedagogics are interesting in this respect. In the twentieth century in particular examples of this kind of thinking can be seen in various countries, in the work of Pascal, Kierkegaard and in the Judeo-Christian tradition (Buber, Maritain), among others.

Personalistic thinking centers on the human individual as a person. As a person-in-the-making the child is charged with the task of realizing its intention in a dialectical relationship with the other. Again this is considered to justify the existence of education, for children need help in order to be able to do this. The process of self-realization, which is less concerned with capitalizing on one's potential than with finding one's specific purpose in life (which may or may not be interpreted in a religious sense), does not really lend itself to empirical research within the context of developmental psychology, nevertheless it has consistently inspired the thinking regarding education. In this case the human being is considered to be the architect of his own destiny and, as a pupil or student, is partly responsible for his own education.

This view has been convincingly elaborated by the Italian pedagogue Guiseppe Flores d'Arcais who is not as well-known as he should be in the Netherlands. His life virtually coincides with the twentieth century and during the course of the twentieth century in Italy Guiseppe Flores d'Arcais has played a vital role in reestablishing pedagogics as academic discipline. He deliberately set himself the task of founding pedagogics "juxta propria principia'" (according to its own principles) and in doing so he aimed to give it its own epistemological identity.

Above all, Flores d'Arcais saw the unique contribution of pedagogics in the creation of the person. Education was no longer primarily regarded as a process of socialization, but as a creative and value-inspired process of person-making. Indeed, this creation of the person is the true and main principle of pedagogics. However, this does not mean that pedagogics is able to sail its own course. Flores d'Arcais speaks of the necessity of combining anthropology, teleology (axiology and deontology) and methodology in a three-dimensional pedagogic theory.

In addition to elaborating on the education of the individual and the kind of assistance that promotes personal development, triadic pedagogics also elaborates on the process involved in the transmission and renewal of human culture. Thanks above all to Imelman, the transmission and renewal of human culture has been extracted from the relatively obscure and ambiguous atmosphere in the relationship between the educator and the child and subjected to a clear analysis in the triadic model. Something (a certain point of view) is always communicated. The point of view (or aspect of knowledge) in question is partly reflected in the pedagogic analysis.

In this case, rather than focusing on a theory regarding the pedagogic relationship, we are concerned with an analysis of the triangular relationship between the child, the educator and the point of view being communicated. It hardly needs to be emphasized that such an analysis is also likely to include anthropological factors. A rational and objectifying approach to the transfer of knowledge within the context of the teaching-learning process encourages the pupils to process knowledge critically and helps to prevent the unquestioning absorption of knowledge. The anthropological principle that applies in this case is that the human child should be educated as a rational (and responsible) being.

The considerations outlined above are some of the standard issues addressed by program-oriented theories of education, particularly within the tradition of the humanities. Pedagogues who lean towards conceptual analysis can therefore claim that they have already dealt with this aspect, given that conceptual analysis is concerned with distinguishing between meaning and nonsense, fiction and reality. In the same way, descriptive scientists can question the empirical and practical relevance of the entire anthropological body of thought. In this respect we are all too well aware of the theoretical diversity that exists within the field of pedagogic science.

So to sum up the ideas set out above:

Pedagogic reasoning is often based on ideas developed by philosophical anthropology. Dominant anthropological principles in pedagogics are man as the not-yet-determined animal and man as a creature of discipline; the human being as an unspecialized being living in an open world; the human being as a rational being. Educational theory is often based on anthropological reflections, seen from the point of view of natural development, cultural philosophy or personalism. An analysis of the central question addressed by pedagogics (what needs to be taught to whom, when, how and why?) is likely to be enhanced by an anthropologically based study of educational reality.

In the introduction, taking our lead from Langeveld, we wrote that the purpose of education is to promote development and self-forming within the context of relatively constant personal relationships. In most cases the education that occurs within the context classic family education is conveyed within the home. In traditional pedagogics the kind of education that takes place within the household is adopted as the model for residential forms of education. Pestalozzi uses the terms "Wohnstubenerziehung" (living-room education) and the "Wohnstubengeist" (living-room atmosphere) that should ideally prevail in professional education. Domesticity involves a certain naturalness (Schleiermacher describes education within the home by the child's biological parents as the "natural starting point of education") and also includes emotional-affective factors and a coherent community in terms of concepts and attitudes.

Today -- two centuries on -- the home is still the main scene of action, though there have been a number of essential changes in the intervening period. For one thing, children of a very young age now spend one or more days a week at crčches and day care centers, children are made to start school younger and younger, the large number of divorces and second and third marriages mean that many children grow up in a number of (step) families, older children leave the family earlier to live in lodgings, or, alternatively, they continue to live at home for longer, or leave the family home only to return again and again (the so-called boomerang kids). In other words, the family home is increasingly characterized by huge diversity.

In addition to this, from the point of view of transmission the 'home' represents something far more fundamental. In this respect Buber speaks of Hauslosigkeit (homelessness in a figurative sense) as a characteristic feature of modern culture. According to Buber, the home -- in the sense of a shared ideology -- has gradually been demolished. This has implications for interpersonal relationships and life within society at large. Shared values and standards can no longer be taken for granted.

Tying in with this, many of the French postmodernist thinkers (Lyotard and Derrida among others) claim that the "main storylines" (the grands rйcits) have lost their credibility. In saying so they are referring not only to the decline of the Christian world view, which was widely upheld in the past, but -- more broadly -- to all secularized forms of Judeo-Christian theology subscribed to in the past, to the myth of human progress being achieved by means of science and technology, and, more generally, to all of the stories that people have used to help make the world and their own lives more understandable. In the postmodern culture the human individual is forced to live without a home, as it were. And "a homeless person is a disoriented person!" (Sperna Weiland, 1999, pp. 347 and 364).

The postmodernists deny that there are any central truths; they emphasize the pluriformity of reality (differential philosophy) and thus confirm what Nietzsche said a century earlier: "There is no such thing as absolute truth." On the other hand, there are countless perspectives from which to examine reality. The same applies to the understanding of text: there is no single meaning or no single truth. Similarly, deconstruction teaches that there is no text, there is only interpretation.

Postmodern principles are not confined to the philosophy of architecture, they also characterize social reality. This is not something that pedagogics can afford to overlook since these principles permeate the "Volk- und Zeitgeist" (Jean Paul). Faced with these postmodern principles we need to ask what are the pedagogic implications of these postmodern developments? Or, in the light of the ideas set out above, how does 'Hauslosigkeit' affect "relatively constant personal relationships" and the child's natural tendency to "determine and shape the values that it has learned or discovered increasingly independent" (Langeveld) and the endeavour to teach young people to think critically and to communicate an awareness of values (Imelman)?

What is 'modern youth'?

Before we can answer the key question addressed by this article, we first need to have some idea of the distinguishing characteristics of modern youth. Sociologists concerned with juveniles frequently conduct research studies on this subject. The juvenile sociological research department in Leiden has gained a certain standing in the Netherlands. Below we quote some of the findings presented in the many publications by one of the authors of the department, Manuela du Bois-Reymond.

According to Du Bois-Reymond the juvenile phase is under pressure. This phase now involves the characteristic aspects of individualization and pluriformity, freedom of choice and forced choices, a negotiation culture combined with informalization, and the movement from a standard career to an ą la carte career.

Young people now stay at school longer. The longer period of education and increased peer pressure is changing the relationship between young people and their parents. Parents increasingly have to compete with the standards and way of life of their children's peers. The traditional nuclear family of father, mother and child now exists alongside other ways of living: communities of unmarried adults with children, divorced parents, single parents or guardians. There has been a wholesale extension of the youth phase with a distinction being made between post-adolescents and young adults. Young people now have more freedom of choice but have to be able to legitimize their choices.

Compared with a few decades ago juveniles no longer follow a set life pattern on their way towards adulthood. The sequence of status passages (the transition from one life situation to the next, such as the transition from school to higher education or the transition from living at home to living alone) is now unpredictable. There is no longer such a thing as a standard career -- it is now more appropriate to think in terms of ą la carte career. The aspect of choice is also evident at secondary school. Du Bois-Reymond observes that "The compulsory national cultural curriculum [...] is giving way in favour of more choice".

"The relationship between parents and juveniles is now far more intimate, freer and more congenial than was previously the case." "The present intimacy in families -- call it domestic negotiation -- has an aspect of uncertainty [...] in the sense that future is now an uncertain factor for all members of society, regardless of their age." "This has to do with the labor market which is now unpredictable."

In addition to the research on the juvenile phase being carried out in Leiden, young people themselves have come up with numerous pedagogic insights. Lea Dasberg sees the "boundlessness in all aspects of our culture" as "the main problem encountered by modern-day pedagogics", while Micha de Winter offers an updated perception of "society's pedagogic responsibility" (Perquin), pointing to the fact that young people feel that they have been left out in the cold in all kinds of social situations (the gap in education).

Though we may agree that it is helpful and possibly even necessary to educate a child, we are still not sure precisely what kind of education we are talking about. A broad awareness of the need for education does not automatically imply that there is unanimity regarding the content of the educational activity. Above we saw that to some extent the definition of education is based on anthropological assumptions. Conditions, methods and objectives all vary depending on the prevailing view of the human individual, among other things. Arguing that naturalness was primary, Rousseau defended the idea that the child must be educated to become the human being that nature intended him to be since the child was unable to achieve this on its own and cultural influences simply had an adverse effect.

Writing at approximately the same time, Lessing claimed that a child could be educated given that education simply served to accelerate and facilitate the process of becoming a human being that was already underway. As far as Lessing was concerned, the belief in progress that was one of the main tenets of the Enlightenment included the idea of education. For this reason it was important to subject society to constructive criticism (and not to turn away from society as Rousseau advocated), for this would also accelerate the process of society becoming more rational.

Agreeing with the principles voiced by Rousseau and Lessing, Pestalozzi -- who was also writing in around 1800 -- was in favour of a method of education that drew on the natural development of the child and he also devoted a great deal of effort to the creation a better society. Accepting the biologically established incompleteness and unspecializedness of the human child who, in addition to this, also lives in an open world, one-and-a-half centuries later Gehlen felt it necessary to emphasize the need for discipline (see the first paragraph of this article).

However, pedagogics is usually more complex than this tends to suggest. For besides seeing the corruption of nature (which he wished to restore) Pestalozzi also saw an unjust society (which he wished to change) and in addition to this he was also an ardently religious man. As might be expected, all of these different aspects are reflected in his concept of education. The later interpretations of his work sometimes focus exclusively on one aspect, giving the impression that there were several Pestalozzis (or should we acknowledge that these interpretations are all true in the way that postmodernism recognizes the validity of different interpretations).

The confusion got worse still when in 1996 writers in Germany levelled fierce criticism at the way in which Pestalozzi's work had been received by German pedagogics at the beginning of the 20th century, though it was not clear whether the criticism was aimed at the misinterpretation of Pestalozzi's work and the exaggerated personality cult or at Pestalozzi's original ideas. As far as Gehlen was concerned, Pestalozzi not only saw the relationship between biological incompleteness and the need for discipline, he also established a connection between culture (as the second nature of the human being) and the need for education with a view to furthering culture.

And it gets more complex still if we attempt to visualize education under conditions of postmodernity. Postmodernist theory may well help to clarify the issues faced by modern-day education, by establishing a connection between Hauslosigkeit, the sense of disorientation and the teaching of values. Yet it is difficult to conceive of a practice of education deliberately based on the body of postmodernist thought. For what does the educator have to offer the child if the educator constantly points to the wealth of perspectives, denying the existence of absolute truth and relativizing all explanatory associations?

The application of postmodernist theory in educational situations presupposes that any such theory would first be comprehensively formulated as a pedagogic approach before there could be any practical consequences. Generally speaking, leaving aside the question as to whether such an approach would actually be desirable, children are uncomfortable with uncertainty or with a wealth of perspectives and the relativization of values. For the rest, it is possible to conceive of an educational theory that draws on insights expounded by differential philosophy, for example. Even if it is only that on the basis of this philosophy the gender aspect of education can be elaborated in a new way.

If the attempt to define precisely what we mean by the term 'education' and to identify the kinds of assumptions are at issue proves problematic within the context of a single concept of education, it is hardly surprising that it will be even more difficult to arrive at unequivocality and unanimity within the science of education as a whole. History shows a kaleidoscopic picture of standard concepts of education and in our day the science of education is still characterized by a diversity of concepts and methods. The answer to the question "What is education?" gives rise to a picture of diverse activities. However, when it comes to a general description of the terrain, Kant's definition (1803) still stands. Education encompasses the following four aspects: nurture and protection, the teaching of rules (discipline), instruction and training.

Education is a matter of "cheerful seriousness", but serious all the same. In order to prevent a situation in which pedagogics lapses into unfortunate relativism ("there is no such thing as absolute truth") or degenerates into a supermarket model ("every customer selects something to suit his taste"), it is necessary to establish certain a priori rights of the child being educated (possibly based on the UN declaration regarding the rights of the child, or on other respectable and broadly upheld principles, such as Albert Schweitzer's maxim of "Respect for life"). As far as the science of education is concerned, it is important to state explicitly, as far as possible, the basic principles being subscribed to.

If it is true that young people have never been faced with as much uncertainty as they are in our time (in the sense of 'Hauslosigkeit', looser family ties, unrelenting dictatorship of choice, uncertain expectations with regard to the future, a potpourri attitude towards values and standards, etc.), it is all the more necessary to subject education and training to the critical authority of reason. As formulated by Imelman and Meijer in triadic pedagogics: education in which pupils are taught to ask teachers to account for the subject matter being taught, and teachers are asked to account for what they are teaching by means of the game of reducing uncertainty. The idea is that pupils should be able to gain a thorough command of the subject they are being taught, in other words, that they should reflect on what they are learning and assume responsibility and in doing so create a hold on life. This is a prerequisite for the child to be able to develop into a person. And in a scientific sense a permanently critical outlook that does not shy from criticizing sacred cows in the interest of education.

Or, as formulated by Bollnow in his anthropological pedagogics, an education in which a permanent appeal is made to the (development of the) inner reason of the child. Education is more necessary than ever, an education that continues to be a true subject of conversation: "Since we are a conversation and can listen to each other" (Hцlderlin).

Pedagogy is also occasionally referred to as the correct use of instructive strategies (see instructional theory). For example, Paulo Freire referred to his method of teaching adult humans as "critical pedagogy". In correlation with those instructive strategies the instructor's own philosophical beliefs of instruction are harbored and governed by the pupil's background knowledge and experience, situation, and environment, as well as learning goals set by the student and teacher. One example would be the Socratic schools of thought

The Latin-derived word for pedagogy: child-instruction, is in modern use in English to refer to the whole context of instruction, learning, and the actual operation involved therein, although both words have roughly the same original meaning. In English the term pedagogy is used to refer to instructive theory; trainee teachers learn their subject and also the pedagogy appropriate for teaching that subject. The introduction of information technology into schools has necessitated changes in pedagogy; teachers are adopting new methods of teaching facilitated by the new technology. The late Malcolm Knowles reasoned that the term andragogy is more pertinent when discussing adult learning and teaching. He referred to andragogy as the art and science of teaching adults.

THE present is the age of intellectualism. The intellect is that faculty of soul in the exercise of which man's inner being participates least. One speaks with some justification of the cold intellectual nature; we need only reflect how the intellect acts upon artistic perception or practice. It dispels or impedes. And artists dread that their creations may be conceptually or symbolically explained by the intelligence. In the clarity of the intellect the warmth of soul which, in the act of creation, gave life to their works, is extinguished. The artist would like his work to be grasped by feeling, not by the understanding. For then the warmth with which he has experienced it is communicated to the beholder. But this warmth is repelled by an intellectual explanation.

In social life intellectualism separates men from one another. They can only work rightly within the community when they are able to impart to their deeds — which always involve the weal or woe of their fellow beings — something of their soul. One man should experience not only another's activity but something of his soul. In a deed, however, which springs from intellectualism, a man withholds his soul nature. He does not let it flow over to his neighbour. It has long been said that in the teaching and training of children intellectualism operates in a crippling way. In saying this one has in mind, in the first place, only the child's intelligence, not the teacher's. One would like to fashion one's methods of training and instruction so that not only the child's cold understanding may be aroused and developed, but warmth of heart may be engendered too.

The anthroposophical view of the world is in full agreement with this. It accepts fully the excellent educational maxims which have grown from this demand. But it realises clearly that warmth can only be imparted from soul to soul. On this account it holds that, above all, pedagogy itself must become ensouled, and thereby the teachers' whole activity.

In recent times intellectualism has permeated strongly into methods of instruction and training. It has achieved this indirectly, by way of modern science. Parents let science dictate what is good for the child's body, soul and spirit. And teachers, during their training, receive from science the spirit of their educational methods.

But science has achieved its triumphs precisely through intellectualism. It wants to keep its thoughts free of anything from man's own soul life, letting them receive everything from sense observation and experiment. Such a science could build up the excellent knowledge of nature of our time, but it cannot found a true pedagogy.

A true pedagogy must be based upon a knowledge that embraces man with respect to body, soul and spirit. Intellectualism only grasps man with respect to his body, for to observation and experiment the bodily alone is revealed. Before a true pedagogy can be founded, a true knowledge of man is necessary. This Anthroposophy seeks to attain.

One cannot come to a knowledge of man by first forming an idea of his bodily nature with the help of a science founded merely on what can be grasped by the senses, and then asking whether this bodily nature is ensouled, and whether a spiritual element is active within it. In dealing with a child such an attitude is harmful. For in him, far more than in the adult, body, soul and spirit form a unity. One cannot care first for the health of the child from the point of view of a merely natural science, and then want to give to the healthy organism what one regards as proper from the point of view of soul and spirit. In all that one does to the child and with the child one benefits or injures his bodily life. In man's earthly life soul and spirit express themselves through the body. A bodily process is a revelation of soul and spirit.

Material science is of necessity concerned with the body as a physical organism; it does not come to a comprehension of the whole man. Many feel this while regarding pedagogy, but fail to see what is needed to-day. They do not say: pedagogy cannot thrive on material science; let us therefore found our pedagogic methods out of pedagogic instincts and not out of material science. But half-consciously they are of this opinion.

We may admit this in theory, but in practice it leads to nothing, for modern humanity has lost the spontaneity of the life of instinct. To try to-day to build up an instinctive pedagogy on instincts which are no longer present in man in their original force, would remain a groping in the dark. We come to see this through anthroposophical knowledge. We learn to know that the intellectualistic trend in science owes its existence to a necessary phase in the evolution of mankind. In recent times man passed out of the period of instinctive life. The intellect became of predominant significance. Man needed it in order to advance on his evolutionary path in the right way. It leads him to that degree of consciousness which he must attain in a certain epoch, just as the individual must acquire particular capabilities at a particular period of his life. But the instincts are crippled under the influence of the intellect, and one cannot try to return to the instinctive life without working against man's evolution. We must accept the significance of that full consciousness which has been attained through intellectualism, and — in full consciousness — give to man what instinctive life can no longer give him.

We need for this a knowledge of soul and spirit which is just as much founded on reality as is material, intellectualistic science. Anthroposophy strives for just this, yet it is this that many people shrink from accepting. They learn to know the way modern science tries to understand man. They feel he cannot be known in this way, but they will not accept that it is possible to cultivate a new mode of cognition and — in clarity of consciousness equal to that in which one penetrates the bodily nature — attain to a knowledge of soul and spirit. So they want to return to the instincts again in order to understand the child and train him.

But he must go forwards; and there is no other way than to extend anthropology by acquiring Anthroposophy and sense knowledge by acquiring spiritual knowledge. We have to learn all over again. Men are terrified at the complete change of thought required for this. From unconscious fear they attack Anthroposophy as fantastic, yet it only wants to proceed in the spiritual domain as soberly and as carefully as material science in the physical.

Let us consider the child. About the seventh year of life he develops his second teeth. This is not merely the work of the period of time immediately preceding. It is a process that begins with embryonic development and only concludes with the second teeth. These forces, which produce the second teeth at a certain stage of development, were always active in the child's organism. They do not reveal themselves in this way in subsequent periods of life. Further teeth formations do not occur. Yet the forces concerned have not been lost; they continue to work; they have merely been transformed. They have undergone a metamorphosis. (There are still other forces in the child's organism which undergo metamorphosis in a similar way.)

If we study in this way the development of the child's organism we discover that these forces are active before the change of teeth. They are absorbed in the processes of nourishment and growth. They live in undivided unity with the body, freeing themselves from it about the seventh year. They live on as soul forces; we find them active in the older child in feeling and thinking.

Anthroposophy shows that an etheric organism permeates the physical organism of man. Up to the seventh year the whole of this etheric organism is active in the physical. But now a portion of the etheric organism becomes free from direct activity in the physical. It acquires a certain independence, becoming thereby an independent vehicle of the soul life, relatively free from the physical organism.

In earth life, however, soul experience can only develop with the help of this etheric organism. Hence the soul is quite embedded in the body before the seventh year. To be active during this period, it must express itself through the body. The child can only come into relationship with the outer world when this relationship takes the form of a stimulus which runs its course within the body. This can only be the case when the child imitates. Before the change of teeth the child is a purely imitative being in the widest sense. His training must consist in this: that those around him perform before him what he is to imitate.

The child's educator should experience within himself what it is to have the whole etheric organism within the physical. This gives him knowledge of the child. With abstract principles alone one can do nothing. Educational practice requires an anthroposophical art of education to work out in detail how the human being reveals himself as a child.

Just as the etheric organism is embedded in the physical until the change of teeth, so, from the change of teeth until puberty, there is embedded in the physical and etheric a soul organism, called the astral organism by Anthroposophy. As a result of this the child develops a life that no longer expends itself in imitation. But he cannot yet govern his relation to others in accordance with fully conscious thoughts regulated by intellectual judgment. This first becomes possible when, at puberty, a part of the soul organism frees itself from the corresponding part of the etheric organism. From his seventh to his fourteenth or fifteenth year the child's life is not mainly determined by his relation to those around him in so far as this results from his power of judgment. It is the relation which comes through authority that is important now.

This means that, during these years, the child must look up to someone whose authority he can accept as a matter of course. His whole education must now be fashioned with reference to this. One cannot build upon the child's power of intellectual judgment, but one should perceive clearly that the child wants to accept what is put before him as true, good and beautiful, because the teacher, whom he takes for his model, regards it as true, good and beautiful.

Moreover the teacher must work in such a way that he not merely puts before the child the True, the Good and the Beautiful, but — in a sense — is these. What the teacher is passes over into the child, not what he teaches. All that is taught should be put before the child as a concrete ideal. Teaching itself must be a work of art, not a matter of theory.

The case method is based on a philosophy of professional education which associates knowledge directly with action (Boehrer, 1995). This philosophy rejects the doctrine that students should first learn passively, and then, having learned, should apply knowledge. Instead, the case method is based on the principle that real education consists of the cumulative and unending acquisition, combination and reordering of learning experiences.

There are two fundamental principles underpinning the case method. First, the best-learned lessons are the ones that students teach themselves, through their own struggles. Second, many of the most useful kinds of understanding and judgement cannot be taught but must be learned through practical experience. When instructors assign problems or papers in a course, they are motivated by a similar concern: by working through the problem set on their own or writing the paper, students reach a deeper understanding of the concepts and ideas than they would have if they only read the text or listened passively to lectures. Case method teaching extends this principle to make preparing for class and the class session itself an active learning experience for students. By using complex real-world problems as the focus, it challenges students to learn skills that will be appropriate to deal with the practical problems that they will face as economists, civil servants or private managers.

Teaching through the case method allows educators to address specific pedagogical issues and to develop higher-order skills in students. Velenchik (1995) highlights four pedagogical issues addressed by the case method:

Motivation to learn theory. In general, undergraduate economics courses tend to treat applications as secondary to the exposition of theory. In our teaching we often use examples to illustrate the application of particular theoretical concepts. However, we tend to use the example to reinforce the theory, having taught the theory first, rather than thinking of the theory as a set of tools for answering the question posed by the application. The focus, therefore, is on the theory itself, and the application is often perceived as incidental. When students do not understand the purpose of theory, the process of learning becomes more dry and difficult than it needs to be, and they often fail to grasp the tools they need. In the case method, the problem that the students are challenged to solve takes centre stage. They soon realise that they do not have the tools and they start looking for the tools. They want to learn theory.

Application of theory. The ultimate goal of economics education is to enable students to apply economic reasoning to particular policy issues. The focus is generally as much on the process of policy analysis as on the specific area of policy. One method for illustrating the process is through examples related to lectures. However, this is problematic. The example is often preceded by theory, so that students think of the application as a use of the theory, rather than seeing the theory as a tool for dealing with the issues raised by the application. Examples are commonly selected because they are good illustrations of particular theoretical concepts, but they do little to help students learn which theories are appropriate for which kinds of policy problem. On the other hand, the case method requires the student to identify the theory that best addresses the economic problem under investigation.

Use of evidence. Empirical analysis, guided by theoretical concepts and analytical tools, is central to many economics modules. Students are often required to develop an ability to use quantitative evidence. This often involves a number of tasks, including determining what types of evidence are relevant measures of particular phenomena, evaluating the credibility of available information, performing calculations to arrive at appropriate and useful measures, and finding the best way to convey this information using tables and graphs. In this respect, although the lecture and example method usually provides students with some exposure to quantitative information, it does not require them to do the work themselves. A prepared classroom example does not provide training in how to select, manipulate and present such evidence; nor does it help students learn to interpret evidence themselves. Case studies include raw data that students have to manipulate, represent and comment on in order to solve the problem.

Limitation of theory. One of the most difficult aspects of applying economic analysis is understanding which parts of a question can be answered by economic analysis, and which are best addressed using other disciplines. In particular, students need to learn the difference between identifying economic consequences of a policy choice and considering these decisions in the broader social and political context in which policy-makers and business leaders find themselves. It is difficult to use a lecture and example to fulfil these goals, since classroom examples are often abstracted from their context. The case method forces students to be confronted with the broader (non-economic) consequences of economic decisions.

The case method can also be used in a very effective way in order to move students gradually up the cognitive skills ladder from the low skills levels of knowledge, comprehension and application to the higher and more desirable skills of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. This educational taxonomy was originally proposed by Bloom (1956) and, even if not uncontested, it provides a transparent and structured approach to the development of students’ skills. The following list describes this educational taxonomy and then explains how the case method helps in developing each of the skills.

Knowledge. This refers to the student’s ability to remember previously learned information. It involves the recall of a wide range of material but all that is required is bringing appropriate information to mind, not necessarily understanding its meaning. The case method is probably not the most efficient way to convey knowledge. However, in combination with some lectures, it can be used to broaden knowledge.

Comprehension. This skill is defined as the ability to grasp the meaning of material and it can be demonstrated by translating material from one form to another, by interpreting material and by extrapolating information. By basing knowledge within a real-world context, the case method supports and facilitates the comprehension of basic knowledge.

Application. This is the ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations. It may include the application of rules, methods, concepts, principles, law and theories. Through the analysis of policy decisions or business strategies, students develop an understanding of how theory is applied in real-world contexts.

Analysis. This identifies the ability to break down material into its component parts so that its organisational structure may be understood. The process generally includes identification of the parts, analysis of the relationships among the parts and recognition of the organisational principles involved. As already mentioned, analysis is at the centre of the case method. The case studies require students to break down complex information, establish relationships and identify issues.

Synthesis. This skill refers to the ability to put parts together to form a new whole. The process may involve, for example, the production of a unique communication (presentation) or a plan of operations (research proposal). Case studies foster this skill by requiring students to identify relevant information, summarise fundamental concepts and present a concise summary of main events.

Evaluation. Critical evaluation is concerned with the ability to judge the value of material for a given purpose. After having analysed and synthesised a particular case, students are required to engage in an evaluation of alternative policies or strategies available to policy-makers or business leaders. This can include an evaluation of decisions already taken against possible alternative solutions.

The case method is a rich and powerful approach to the development of cognitive skills in students. It is also a flexible approach, in the sense that lecturers can use it in alternative ways. These are discussed in the next section.

Pedagogy the science of the specially organized, goal-oriented, and systematic molding of a human being; the science of the content, forms, and methods of upbringing, education, and instruction.

The basic categories of pedagogy are personality formation, upbringing, education, and instruction. Personality formation, formerly called upbringing in its broad sense, is the process of shaping an individual by means of goal-oriented influence (upbringing in the true sense of the word) and of the varied and often contradictory influences of the environment. In contemporary foreign pedagogy the first group of influences is often called intentional upbringing, and the second functional upbringing.

In Marxist pedagogy, upbringing is a key concept referring to the goal-oriented activities of society and family directed toward forming a fully developed person, chiefly in institutions and organizations specially created by society. The concept of upbringing generally comprises intellectual, moral, labor, aesthetic, and physical upbringing as well as the formation of a world view. However, such distinctions are largely arbitrary, since upbringing in practice is a single, integrated process.

Education is the process and result of assimilating a system of knowledge and of developing skills and habits eventually ensuring a certain level of development of a person’s cognitive needs and capacities and his ability to perform some kind of practical activity. A distinction is made between general and specialized education. General education provides each person with the knowledge, skills, and habits he needs for overall development. These are the basis for a subsequent specialized education, whose goal is preparation for professional work. In level and scope, both general and specialized education may be primary, secondary, or higher. Polytechnic education is an integral part of general education.

A most important means for effecting education and upbringing is instruction, the process of transmitting and assimilating knowledge, skills, and habits and the modes of cognition necessary for the realization of a continuous educational process. The process of instruction comprises the two interconnected parts of a single whole: teaching, the pedagogue’s transmittal of knowledge and his supervision of students’ independent work; and learning, the students’ mastery of a system of knowledge, skills, and habits. Pedagogy is one of the sciences studying man, human society, and the conditions of human life; thus, it takes its place alongside such disciplines as philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, psychology, political economy, ethics, sociology, history, anatomy, physiology, and medicine. It uses their hypotheses and research methods, including mathematical statistics and cybernetics, as well as the results of their empiric research.

Structure and system of pedagogic disciplines. Within the framework of pedagogy are a number of relatively independent divisions dealing with individual facets of teaching and upbringing. The development of the goals, tasks, content, principles, methods, and organization of education and instruction is the province of didactics, or the theory of education and instruction. The theory and methodology of upbringing concern themselves with the formation of moral qualities, political convictions, and aesthetic tastes, as well as with the organization of pupils’ and students’ activities. The discipline of school administration studies all organizational problems related to the management of public education and to the network, structure, and management of educational institutions.

In order to make use of pedagogical research and to study pedagogy thoroughly as a discipline, it is necessary to distinguish the features of upbringing and instruction of groups having different ages and professional orientations. Examples of these groups are preschool children; pupils and students in general-education schools, vocational schools, secondary specialized and higher educational institutions; and members of the military service. Here, such arbitrary designations as preschool, school-age, and higher-educational pedagogy are used, and under study are the organization and the upbringing and instructional methods for a given contingent of students. The specific pedagogic principles governing each group are taken into account.

Related to pedagogy as such are the teaching methods for individual disciplines. Defectology studies the psychophysiological development of abnormal children and the principles of their upbringing, education, and instruction. It includes such narrowly specialized branches as the theory and methods of bringing up, educating, and instructing deaf and hard-of-hearing children, children who are blind or have poor vision, mentally defective children, and children with speech defects. Also related to pedagogy is the history of pedagogy, a discipline that studies the development of the theory and practice of upbringing, education, and instruction during various historical periods.

Development as a science. The first attempts to interpret upbringing in terms of the needs of society were made during the period when slaveholding states flourished in the Mediterranean. Statements about the goal, tasks, content, and methods of upbringing—only for the freeborn, of course—were prominent in the works of Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient Greek philosophers. These statements were not independent pedagogical theories but rather parts of philosophical systems or of programs for organizing society. The ancient Greek philosophers wrote about the reliance of upbringing on principles of ethics and psychology and about the unity of intellectual, moral, and physical development and the division of human development into age periods. Their views were of great importance for the later development of pedagogical thought. In ancient Rome there arose in rhetorical schools a special interest in problems of the organization, content, and methods of instruction. Quin-tilian’s Institutio oratoria was the first specialized work summarizing teaching methods and formulating what was required from teachers and educators; it also indicated the necessity of taking into account the individual traits of each child.

During the Middle Ages, pedagogical views in Europe were strongly influenced by Christianity, which had become the prevailing religion in European feudal society. All views on upbringing developed strictly within the confines of Christian theology. A similar situation existed in other parts of the world, where other religious ideologies, such as Islam and Buddhism, predominated.

Pedagogical views of the 14th to 16th centuries reflected both a striving to free human thought from religious dogma and the revival of interest in man himself and in his everyday work. These were traits characteristic of the period of feudalism’s decline and the emergence of capitalist social relations. Writing in diverse genres, Renaissance humanists such as T. More, T. Campanella, Erasmus of Rotterdam, F. Rabelais, and M. Montaigne advanced ideas of an all-around harmonious development of man’s spiritual and physical resources. They favored a secular education based on the assimilation of the ancient world’s cultural legacy and on the achievements of science, which was developing rapidly.

The history of pedagogy as an integrated theory of educating man began at the time of the first bourgeois revolutions in Europe. The first important contribution to the history of pedagogy was made by the Czech thinker J. A. Comenius, who summarized and theoretically interpreted European educational traditions to create a harmonious pedagogical system. In The Great Didactic he examined the basic problems of instruction and upbringing. Comenius founded the classroom system of instruction. His pedagogical theory formed part of the broad sociopolitical concept set forth in his major work, General Consultation About the Improvement of Human Affairs, one of whose parts, the Pampaedia, is wholly devoted to pedagogy. In particular, it contains the first formulation and exposition of the idea of continuous education and upbringing throughout a person’s life and also the contention that books should be the chief instrument of education.

Beginning with the period of the English Civil War of the 17th century, two basic trends in the development of pedagogical thought may be distinguished. The feudal and clerical concept of upbringing continued to prevail, but at the same time a new, bourgeois interpretation of upbringing emerged, whose goal was to mold a man of action and prepare him for his struggle for personal well-being. A clear expression of the new ideals of upbringing is found in the works of the English Enlightenment philosopher J. Locke, who stressed the importance of moral and physical upbringing and originated the utilitarian approach to education and instruction. Locke’s opposition to the theory of innate ideas was of major importance.

In the 18th century theories of upbringing developed chiefly within the framework of the Enlightenment. Guided by Locke’s doctrine of the innate equality of man, such leading French thinkers as C. A. Helvetius, D. Diderot, and J.-J. Rousseau developed the hypotehsis of the decisive role of upbringing and environment in personality formation. Diderot, in particular, considered one of the basic tasks of upbringing to be the development of a person’s individuality. The French materialists substantiated and popularized the idea of a practical education that would eventually replace scholastic education. The greatest contribution to 18th-century pedagogical thought was made by Rousseau, who originated the concept of a natural, free upbringing. Rousseau undertook to outline the tasks, content, and methods of bringing up and instructing children, proceeding from the specific features of their physical and spiritual development at different stages of growth; he stressed the need for more active methods of instructing children. His influence is seen in the democratic plans for reforming public education in France during the revolution of 1789–93. It is also reflected in the work of the German philanthropists J. B. Basedow, C. G. Salzmann, and J. H. Campe, who founded the first boarding schools and inaugurated the theoretical development of pedagogy as a discipline.

Pedagogical thought in the 18th and 19th centuries was influenced by a number of theses of German classical philosophy as expounded in the works of I. Kant, J. G. Fichte, and G. W. F. Hegel. The Swiss democratic pedagogue J. H. Pes-talozzi played an important role in resolving pedagogical problems. He attempted to construct a theory of upbringing and instruction based on psychological data. His experience and thoughts dealt with child development during instruction and upbringing and with vocational instruction and methods of teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and other subjects at the elementary level. His work stimulated the development of the science of upbringing in the first half of the 19th century. Pestalozzi was the first theoretician of the public school.

During the first half of the 19th century the German pedagogue, psychologist, and philosopher J. F. Herbart attempted to present pedagogy as a scientific theory based on philosophy and psychology. In his view, philosophy laid the groundwork for the goals of upbringing, and psychology permitted us to find the correct ways of attaining these goals. A number of Herbart’s theses were used in the later development of pedagogy. These included his views on the role played by interest in instruction, on the educative nature of instruction, and on the structure of the learning process. At the same time, however, bourgeois pedagogues assimilated the conservative aspects of Herbart’s doctrine. These were expressed in his theory on handling children, which amounted to suppressing the child’s personality by means of a detailed and fully elaborated system of restrictions and punishments.

The 19th-century German democratic pedagogue F. A. W. Diesterweg contributed significantly to pedagogy in general and to didactics in particular. He maintained that one of the most important factors in upbringing was the principle of cultural conformity—the taking into account, during the process of upbringing, of all aspects of the culture, history, and economy characteristic of a country and its people. Together with the concept of conforming to nature in upbringing, originated by Comenius, Rousseau, and Pestalozzi though interpreted differently by each, Diesterweg’s principle of cultural conformity significantly enriched pedagogy.

In the late 19th century the movement of progressive education arose. Its adherents expressed the interests of various strata of the bourgeoisie then hostile to one another but united in their opposition to the proletariat and its ideology. The followers of the movement also criticized the scholastic content and dogmatic instructional methods in schools suppressing the personality of pupils and students. The representatives of such currents of progressive education as the new upbringing, the labor school, the movement for art training, and the pedagogy of the personality advocated the free development of each child’s individuality. These educators wanted to develop new organizational forms and methods of instruction, to reform curricula, and to place greater emphasis on upbringing in schools. The ideas of such exponents of progressive education as J. Dewey, G. Kerschen-steiner, L. Gurlitt, H. Scharrelmann, O. Decroly, M. Montes-sori, and A. Ferriиre dominated bourgeois pedagogy until the mid-20th century and, to an extent, have been influential to the present time.

In Russia during the 16th and 17th centuries, the old Christian and feudal concept of upbringing as a means of overcoming man’s original sin and developing feelings of humility, submission, and religiosity was challenged by expanding humanistic views of man, although often expressed in concepts and terms of Orthodoxy, and expounded by Simeon Polotskii, Epifanii Slavi-netskii, and the monastic scholars.

The first state system of schools was established in Russia with a charter issued in 1786. Russian pedagogical thought, expressed by F. F. Saltykov, Feofan Prokopovich, and V. N. Tatishchev, dealt with the substantiation of various forms of this system. Views on the tasks, content, and methods of upbringing and instruction largely reflected the interests of “enlightened absolutism” and were rather strongly influenced by the ideas of the French philosophes, well known to such progressive Russian thinkers as I. I. Betskoi and N. I. Novikov. In the late 18th century, F. I. Iankovich de Mirievo helped found didactics in Russia. His work was connected with the need to provide the broadening network of schools with textbooks and teaching aids and to give teachers recommendations on the organization and methods of instruction.

Before the 1860’s, progressive pedagogical ideas in Russia developed mainly as part of the current of democratic and revolutionary social thought. These ideas were expressed by such writers as A. N. Radishchev, A. I. Herzen V. G. Belinskii, A. N. Dobroliubov, N. G. Chernyshevskii, and D. I. Pisarev. The democratic revolutionaries were concerned with the meaning, aim, and tasks of upbringing and with the content and methods of upbringing and education. They regarded the goals of upbringing to be the inculcation of citizens and patriots with a revolutionary and materialistic world view and the training of these citizens as relentless opponents of social evils and as broadly educated and industrious persons.

The development of the emancipation movement that began in the mid-1850’s engendered a widespread antiserfdom movement in pedagogy. Prominent scholars, authors, and educators of the time, including N. I. Pirogov, L. N. Tolstoy, and N. Kh. Vessel’, discussed problems of upbringing and of the impending school reform. Of central importance were questions of the purpose of schools, the humanization of upbringing, and changes to be made in education and teaching methods. Indiscriminate application of foreign pedagogical theories and educational systems was attacked, and a movement for the establishment of a national system of upbringing emerged. All this contributed to pedagogy’s development into an independent professional discipline.

The establishment of pedagogy as a science in Russia is linked with K. D. Ushinskii, who made use of all the positive achievements that had been made by the mid-19th century in pedagogy and psychology. Ushinskii originated a harmonious concept of psychology and pedagogy and based upon it a theory of upbringing and instruction. He came close to understanding how socioeconomic conditions determine the nature of upbringing.

Ushinskii observed the difference between unintentional molding of human personality by the society and upbringing as a purposeful activity for the social reproduction of man. He used the phrase “upbringing in the broad and narrow sense of the word” to define the process. These observations led him to define the subject of pedagogy and to divide pedagogy into a number of branches. By taking a many-sided view of man in the light of information provided by all the sciences studying man and his life, Ushinskii was able to found the discipline of pedagogical anthropology, which he considered the science of educating man as he develops, or pedagogy as such.

Research into these fundamental problems provided the basis for a substantiated theory of education and instruction, which in turn was the basis for the best prerevolutionary public-school textbooks and for the development of teaching methods. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, general problems of pedagogy and didactics were studied by P. F. Kapterev, V. P. Ostrogor-skii, V. P. Vakhterov, N. F. Bunakov, I. N. Ul’ianov, and P. F. Lesgaft and teaching methods by V. Ia. Stoiunin, V. I. Vodovo-zov, and D. D. Semenov. These fields developed extensively at this time under the influence of Ushinskii’s ideas and as a result of his adherents’ work. Ushinskii’s pedagogical ideas also influenced pedagogic through among other peoples of Russia, as seen in the work of Ia. S. Gogebashvili, I. Ia. Iakovlev, G. Agaian, I. Altynsarin, and R. Efendiev.

The turning point in the establishment and development of a truly scientific system of pedagogy was the creation of the theory of dialectical and historical materialism by K. Marx and F. En-gels in the mid-19th century. The founders of scientific Communism stated that man is essentially the sum of social relations, which he “transfers” to himself during the process of social and practical activity. They declared that even while men influence their natural environment and social milieu, they change their own nature. These discoveries revealed the means and factors involved in the social molding of the personality. The works of Marx and Engels disclosed the class character of upbringing in a class society. Their works examined in general the content and methods of molding a fully and harmoniously developed person; the tasks, content, and methods of polytechnic education; the forms and methods of combining instruction with productive work; and the correlation between family upbringing and that of society. Marx and Engels developed the theory of Communist education for the new man. They pointed out that this theory can be realized only after the power of the working class is established.

The basic tenets of the Marxist doctrine of upbringing were developed and defined concretely by V. I. Lenin, who maintained that in a socialist society the younger generation should be inculcated with a materialist world view, Communist convictions, and high moral qualities. The means for achieving this goal are a broad scientific education on a polytechnic base, the linking of instruction with productive work, and the participation of young people in the work of building a new society. Lenin’s doctrine of socialist culture, enlightenment, and Communist education became the basis of modern pedagogy.

Pedagogy in the USSR. The Great October Socialist Revolution created the necessary prerequisites for realizing the Marxist-Leninist conception of upbringing. Soviet pedagogy, guided by the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of man and society, has concerned itself chiefly with developing principles for building a unified polytechnic labor school, with defining the content of instruction and upbringing in this school, with finding means of stimulating teaching, and with the problems of the teaching staff. These concerns are reflected in the works of N. K. Krupskaia, A. V. Luna-charskii, P. P. Blonskii, S. T. Shatskii, P. N. Lepeshinskii, and A. S. Makarenko.

The solution of theoretical problems of Soviet pedagogy dealing with the relationship of pedagogy to other sciences and with the definition of its subject, tasks, and methods has called for a critical review of the pedagogical concepts and theories of the past. As early as the 1920’s, the People’s Commissariat for Education of the RSFSR founded research institutes in Moscow for studying schoolwork (1922) and extracurricular work (1923). Scientific pedagogy was studied at an institute founded in 1926 at the Second Moscow State University, and the Institute of Scientific Pedagogy was founded in Leningrad in 1924. In 1931 an Institute of Polytechnic Education was founded in Moscow; in 1937 it became the Institute of Secondary Schools. In 1938 all pedagogical research institutes were united into the Institute of Schools of the People’s Commissariat for Education of the RSFSR.

In the second half of the 1920’s pedagogical research institutes were founded in the Ukraine (1926), Byelorussia (1928), Georgia (1929), and Azerbaijan (1931). During the 1940’s and 1950’s they were founded in other Union republics. In 1943 the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR was established in order to consolidate scientific pedagogical studies; in 1966 it became the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR.

The establishment and development of Soviet pedagogy is linked with the names of such well-known pedagogues as P. P. Blonskii, A. P. Pinkevich, B. P. Esipov, M. A. Danilov, Sh. I. Ganelin, L. V. Zankov, M. N. Skatkin, I. T. Ogorodnikov, and S. G. Shapovalenko (didactics); V. A. Sukhomlinskii, I. F. Svadkovskii, I. A. Kairov, N. K. Goncharov, E. I. Monoszon, and N. I. Boldyrev (theory and methods of upbringing); and N. A. Konstantinov, E. N. Medynskii, V. Z. Smirnov, F. F. Korolev, D. O. Lordkipanidze, I. K. Kadyrov, M. M. Mekhti-zade, A. A. Kurbanov, S. Kh. Chavdarov, A. E. Izmailov, and S. R. Radzhabov (history of pedagogy). In the years of Soviet power, scholarly editions have been published of the pedagogical works of many outstanding thinkers of the past who contributed to the founding of pedagogy, among them Comenius, Diester-weg, Locke, Pestalozzi, Herbart, Fourier, Owen, Belinskii, Herzen, Chernyshevskii, Dobroliubov, Pisarev, Ushinskii, and Lesgaft. In addition, such trends of the age of imperialism as modern upbringing, the labor school, pragmatism, and experimental pedagogy have been critically analyzed. Textbooks and teaching aids on pedagogy and history, as well as such reference works as the Pedagogical Encyclopedia (vols. 1–3, 1927–29), the Pedagogical Dictionary (vols. 1–2, 1960), and the Pedagogical Encyclopedia (vols. 1–4, 1964–68), have helped summarize and systematize the attainments of Soviet pedagogy.

The chief aim of modern research in Marxist pedagogical science is to find the best ways to mold a fully and harmoniously developed personality, one which is spiritually rich, highly moral, and physically perfect. Pedagogy shows how to develop the content of education and make it correspond to the needs of socialist economy, culture, and science. The age of the scientific and technical revolution is marked by a rapid growth of knowledge in all fields of science, requiring a wider scope of scientific education. Schools must supply this even while their own means and those of the students remain almost the same. Factors to be taken into account include the length of the period of study and of the academic day, as well as the students’ energy and their fatigue factor. Pedagogy develops new principles and criteria for selecting the content of general education: it studies the expansion of learning units, the generalization of knowledge applicable to the needs of general education, the reinforcement of system and theory in general education, and the consistent implementation of the polytechnic principle as a leading criterion in the selection of material for study.

Research in the field of instruction seeks ways to stimulate students and to develop their independence and initiative as they acquire knowledge. Thus, research is being carried on which aims to modernize the canonical forms of the lesson by introducing various types of group and individual student work while retaining the teacher in the role of leader. Other studies are being conducted that seek to perfect means and methods of instruction in order to maximize students’ cognitive interests and abilities and to develop their ability to organize work rationally. An important trend in pedagogical research is the study of the political, ideological, and moral upbringing of youth and of inculcating in them a communist world view. Such research investigates the content and natural laws of the process of molding communist views and convictions, as well as effective pedagogical means to ensure the development in young people of communist consciousness and conduct. The further progress of pedagogy as a science depends to a great extent on defining more precisely the subject itself and its categories and terminology, on improving research methods; and on strengthening ties with other disciplines.

Other current topics of pedagogical research are the history of individual pedagogical problems and their solution, as well as the origin of various pedagogical concepts, theories, methods, and ideas. Such an approach makes the history of pedagogy a true history of the science of upbringing and gives historical research in the field a prognostic significance.

In other socialist countries as well, much attention is devoted to the study of pedagogy. A number of pedagogical research institutes have been founded, such as the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences in the German Democratic Republic. In the European socialist countries, a generation of Marxist pedagogues is contributing substantially to developing the theory and practice of communist upbringing. These educators include G. Neuner, K. H. Giinter, E. Drefenstedt, H. Stolz, and G. Frankiewicz in the German Democratic Republic; M. Cipro, B. Kujal, S. Mařan, E. Stračбr, G. Pavlovič, O. Pavlнk, and L. Bakoљ in Czechoslovakia; W. Okoń, C. Kupisewicz, and K. Sośnicki in Poland; N. Chakarov, D. Tsvetkov, and Zh. Atanasov in Bulgaria; and J. Szarka, S. Nagy, and E. Fцldes in Hungary.

Contemporary bourgeois pedagogy. In the USA pedagogy is studied by the American Educational Research Association, the National Education Association, Phi Delta Kappa, the Educational Testing Service, and the departments and divisions of a number of universities, including Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Chicago. In Great Britain it is studied at the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales and at the Institute of Education of the University of London. In France it is studied at the National Institute of Pedagogical Research and Pedagogical Documentation, as well as at several regional pedagogical centers, and in the Federal Republic of Germany it is studied at the German Institute of Scientific Pedagogy, the Comenius Institute, and the German Institute of International Pedagogical Research.

In contemporary bourgeois pedagogy there is no unity of approach to the basic problems of upbringing, owing to dependence on different schools of idealist philosophy and on various religious doctrines. This absence of unity is reflected in the very names of different pedagogical trends: neopositivism (B. Russell, T. P. Nunn), existentialist pedagogy (J. P. Sartre, O. F. Boll-now), Catholic or neo-Thomist pedagogy (J. Maritain, F. X. Eggersdorfer), and evangelical pedagogy (M. Stalmann, K. Schaller). These are not true schools of pedagogy but the views on education of proponents of these philosophical and religious doctrines. There is also a tendency to divide pedagogy into separate, often self-contained disciplines. These include comparative pedagogy (Y. Bereday, W. Brickman, J. Lauwerys, F. Hilker. L. Frese), cybernetic pedagogy (F. von Cube, H. Frank), and group pedagogy (M. Kelber, E. Hofmann).

In contemporary bourgeois pedagogy, the chief topic studied is didactics. In particular, researchers are trying to elucidate the psychological mechanisms governing instruction and learning (J. Bruner, J. Piaget, H. Roth). They are attempting to adapt education to the needs of each student; the goal of their efforts approaches individual instruction. To help realize these aims the audiovisual-aid method has been developed. Programmed instruction, fashionable in the 1950’s and 1960’s, did not justify the expectations it had raised: special research conducted in the USA in the late 1960’s indicated that 70 percent of the instructional programs were ineffective.

In many countries, and particularly in the USA, much attention is devoted to modernizing the content of education. Work on moral upbringing has increased, though as a rule this aspect of education is discussed in terms of religious morality, individualism, and abstract humanism. Dependence on idealist philosophy and on the sociopolitical ideals of the imperialist circles determines the basic direction of educational research. Bourgeois pedagogy is used to instill in young people the “moral values” of bourgeois society and the ideas of “social partnership” and convergence. The inability of bourgeois pedagogy to solve urgent problems of instruction and upbringing under capitalism has helped to disseminate the conviction that schools in general are outdated and that the society of the future can do without them. Most works of bourgeois pedagogues on upbringing either openly or obliquely preach anticommunism. The dissemination of bourgeois concepts of upbringing in capitalist countries is greatly impeded by the work of Marxist pedagogues, who publicize the achievements of socialist pedagogy and criticize the antidemocratic and antiscientific theories and practices of upbringing in the bourgeois world.

References

1. Woolliscroft JO. In: International handbook of research in medical education. Norman GR, Newble DI, van der Vleuten C, editor. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2002. Medical Student Clinical Education; pp. 365–380.

2. Lauvеs P, Handal G. Handledning och praktisk yrkesteori. (Eng title: Supervising and practical occupational theory) Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2001.

3. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall; 1986.

4. Skyvell Nilsson M, Knutsson A, Samuelsson B, Lцnnroth P, Pilhammar Andersson E. Lдkares erfarenhetsbaserade kunskap. Delrapport 1, Erfarenhetens professionella uttryck. (Eng title: Expression of professional experience) Gцteborg: Institutionen fцr vеrdvetenskap och hдlsa, Sahlgrenska akademin vid Gцteborgs universitet; 2006.

5. Weissmann PF, Branch WT, Gracey CF, Haidet P, Frankel RM. Role modeling humanistic behavior: learning bedside manner from the experts. Academic Medicine. 2006;81:661–667. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000232423.81299.fe. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

6. Wenestam C-G. In: Discussions on some educational issues VII, Research Report 175. P K, editor. Department of Teacher Education, Helsinki University; 1997. Den inlдrningspsykologiska grunden fцr didaktik. (Eng title: The foundation of learning psychology in Didaktik) pp. 85–124.

7. Ramsden P. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer; 2003.

8. Irby DM. Teaching and learning in ambulatory care settings: a thematic review of the literature.Academic Medicine. 1995;70:898–931. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199510000-00014. [PubMed][Cross Ref]

9. Kilminster SM, Jolly BC. Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: a literature review.Medical Education. 2000;34:827–840. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00758.x. [PubMed][Cross Ref]

10. Kernan WN, Hershman W, Alper EJ, Lee MY, Viscoli CM, Perry JR, O'Connor PG. Disagreement between students and preceptors regarding the value of teaching behaviors for ambulatory care settings. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2008;20:143–150. doi: 10.1080/10401330801991667.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]

11. Kern DE, Branch WT Jr, Jackson JL, Brady DW, Feldman MD, Levinson W, Lipkin M Jr. Teaching the psychosocial aspects of care in the clinical setting: practical recommendations. Academic Medicine. 2005;80:8–20. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200501000-00006. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

12. Seabrook MA. Clinical students' initial reports of the educational climate in a single medical school.Medical Education. 2004;38:659–669. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01823.x. [PubMed][Cross Ref]

13. Wahlqvist M, Skott A, Bjorkelund C, Dahlgren G, Lonka K, Mattsson B. Impact of medical students' descriptive evaluations on long-term course development. BMC Medical Education. 2006;6:24. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-6-24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

14. Williams KN, Ramani S, Fraser B, Orlander JD. Improving bedside teaching: findings from a focus group study of learners. Academic Medicine. 2008;83:257–264. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181637f3e. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

15. Sutkin G, Wagner E, Harris I, Schiffer R. What makes a good clinical teacher in medicine? A review of the literature. Academic Medicine. 2008;83:452–466. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31816bee61. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

16. Tiberius GR, Sinai J, Flak AE. In: International handbook of research in medical education. Norman GR, Newble DI, Vleuten CPMvd, editor. Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2002. The Role of Teacher-Learner Relationship in Medical Education; pp. 463–497.

17. Boehler ML, Rogers DA, Schwind CJ, Mayforth R, Quin J, Williams RG, Dunnington G. An investigation of medical student reactions to feedback: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Education. 2006;40:746–749. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02503.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

18. Cote L, Leclere H. How clinical teachers perceive the doctor-patient relationship and themselves as role models. Academic Medicine. 2000;75:1117–1124. [PubMed]

19. Gracey CF, Haidet P, Branch WT, Weissmann P, Kern DE, Mitchell G, Frankel R, Inui T. Precepting humanism: strategies for fostering the human dimensions of care in ambulatory settings. Academic Medicine. 2005;80:21–28. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200501000-00007.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]

20. Ridder JM van de, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OT. What is feedback in clinical education? Medical Education. 2008;42:189–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03078.x.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]

21. Wear D, Kokinova M, Keck-McNulty C, Aultman J. Pimping: perspectives of 4th year medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2005;17:184–191. doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_14. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

22. Heidenreich C, Lye P, Simpson D, Lourich M. The search for effective and efficient ambulatory teaching methods through the literature. Pediatrics. 2000;105:231–237.

23. Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice. 3. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge; 2007.

24. MFR. Riktlinjer fцr etisk vдrdering av medicinsk humanforskning: forskningsetisk policy och organisation i Sverige (Eng title:The Swedish Research Council's guidelines for the ethical evaluation of medical research on humans) Stockholm: Medicinska Forsknings Rеdet; 2003. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki; pp. 99–104.

25. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine; 1967.

26. Gutek GL. Philosophical and ideological perspectives on education. 2. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1997.

27. Dornan T, Boshuizen H, King N, Scherpbier A. Experience-based learning: a model linking the processes and outcomes of medical students' workplace learning. Medical Education.2007;41:84–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02652.x.

28. Seabrook MA. Medical teachers' concerns about the clinical teaching context. Medical Education.2003;37:213–222. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01437.x.