Person-oriented paradigm. Open Library - an open library of educational information The personal paradigm of a person

§ 4. Having learned to make public speeches, having mastered all the wisdom of rhetoric, a person can acquire tremendous power over the audience. Will he always use it for good? The question of the speaker's responsibility to society has long worried rhetors, prompting them to clarify the role of ethics in oratory practice. Here, for example, is what Cicero writes about this: “I often thought for a long time alone with myself about whether eloquence and a deep study of the art of the word brought people and states more good or evil. And in fact: when I think about the troubles that suffer our republic, and I remember the misfortunes that befell the most prosperous cities, everywhere I see that for the most part speechless people are to blame for these troubles. eloquence, founding cities, extinguishing wars, forging lasting alliances, and forging sacred friendships among peoples, so that, on mature reflection, common sense itself leads me to the conclusion that wisdom without eloquence is of little use to the state, but eloquence without wisdom is often only fatal and never Therefore, if a person, forgetting about wisdom and duty, discarding both the sense of honor and valor, becomes concerned only with the study of eloquence, such a citizen will not achieve anything for himself, but for his homeland he will be harmful; if he arm himself with eloquence in order to defend the interests of the state, and not to attack them, then he will be useful to himself, and to his relatives, and to reasonable undertakings in his fatherland, and deserve the love of his fellow citizens.

This aspect is, in fact, extremely important and required a description. personal paradigm speaker, which would define the main components of oratory. It includes the ethos, logos and pathos of the speaker. " Ethos, logos and pathos exist in any public speech and are its objective properties. The speaker, wittingly or unwittingly, will show in his speech a temper that will impress the audience or cause distrust. He will certainly bring facts and reasoning that will convince or be skeptical. Speech will certainly evoke feelings in the audience that are favorable or hinder the goals of the speaker. "Thus, ethos is the moral (ethical) basis of speech; logos is the idea, the content (logical) side of speech; pathos is the means of influencing the audience (the psychological side of speech Here is what A. A. Volkov writes about the study of these categories in general and particular rhetoric: About ethos: “In general rhetoric, the conditions for the ethical assessment of the image of a rhetor by the audience are studied based on the results of speech. The semantic positions of this assessment, the so-called oratorical morals, mean at the same time the moral tasks that the rhetor sets for himself"; about logos: "In private rhetoric, methods of argumentation are studied that are characteristic of specific types of literature, for example, theological, legal, natural science, historical argumentation. In general rhetoric, the method of constructing an argument in any kind of word is studied"; about pathos: "The emotions that the rhetor forms in the audience and the emotional image of speech are interconnected. They manifest themselves in different ways in specific forms of literature, but a novel, a philosophical treatise, oratory, and a sermon can be sustained in a sentimental, romantic, heroic spirit and evoke various rhetorical emotions - anger, compassion, patriotism, solidarity, etc. e. But sentimental speech cannot induce an audience to decisive action, and heroic pathos does not promote compassion for one's neighbor. This means that in general rhetoric, the techniques of creating literary pathos and rhetorical emotions are studied.

In fact, the entire section "The Invention of Speech" is devoted to the description of the features of logos and pathos, so we will dwell here in more detail only on ethos.

Returning to Cicero's reasoning, we note that for fear of teaching immoral people how to influence the audience, sometimes they call for abandoning the idea of ​​teaching rhetoric altogether. One cannot agree with this, because an immoral speaker can, after all, learn rhetoric on his own, and in this case a wide audience will be deprived of the opportunity to correctly assess the degree of speculative means used by the speaker. On the contrary, only extensive training in rhetoric, education of conscious listeners can lead to the neutralization of immoral orators, to a decrease in the degree of their impact on the audience.

The main criterion for distinguishing a moral orator was indicated by N.F. Koshansky: "Eloquence always has three features: the strength of feelings, persuasiveness and the desire for the common good. The first two can also be imaginary in eloquence; the latter significantly distinguishes true eloquence." Thus, exactly striving for the common good determines the assessment of the moral and value orientation of the speaker (ethos), which is manifested in everything: in the choice of the topic of speech, the definition of the task of communication, in the subject of the speech, in the selection of means of argumentation, in the atmosphere of the meeting, etc. Even the use of techniques that logic considers sophisms , as we will see later, can take both speculative and permissible forms, depending on the moral orientation of the speaker. Through ethos, the influence of the inner world of the speaker on the inner world of the listeners is carried out.

An analysis of the trends and goals of higher education in the conditions of Russian society and a range of studies on the problem allow us to state that a person-oriented paradigm is becoming a priority approach to the design and organization of higher education, which does not have an unambiguous interpretation in pedagogical theory and practice.

The main goal of the paradigm of student-centered education at the university is to provide humane conditions for the personal and professional growth of the student, individual and free self-determination of the future specialist in the chosen professional activity, and the full disclosure of the potential of the individual. All substantive, procedural and technological components of education are aimed at the versatile development of the student, at shaping his image of the changing world, which gives him the opportunity to realize his uniqueness, dissimilarity, originality through reflection, creativity. Personally oriented higher education considers the family, parents, the public, government institutions, the media, professional associations, the professional and pedagogical community, scientific, cultural and public institutions as active subjects of educational policy.

The personality-oriented paradigm of higher education, which meets the challenge of the time, will have to change the current "knowledge-enlightenment" paradigm, which leads to a revision of all components of the content of education and their organizational and pedagogical composition. The adoption of the personal paradigm significantly changes the strategic orientations of the goals (orientation towards the development of the self of the individual) and content (orientation towards the humanization and humanitarization of education) of higher professional education.

The purposeful humanization of vocational education based on the construction of new learning systems, in the center of which is the student, his abilities and interests ("pedagogy of goals", "modular learning", etc.), as well as the application of methods leading to successful learning, is obvious; purposeful orientation towards preparation for self-education, self-development and continuous education based on the implementation of a personal-activity approach to learning (formation of knowledge and skills at a productive level and their translation into a method of action, activation of the individual as a subject of learning and development using teaching methods - project methods, research methods, etc.).

So, the personality-oriented paradigm of higher education ensures the development and self-development of the personal qualities of individuals, which changes the place of the subject of education in the course of professional development.

The center of the educational process of the university is the independent work of the student on self-improvement, self-development, productive self-realization, the creation of optimal conditions for the full deployment and manifestation of the individual capabilities of future specialists. The difference between the presented paradigms is found only at the level of goals, content and specific forms and methods of organizing the educational process.

The personality-oriented paradigm is aimed at the development of the student's subjective activity, who himself "creates teaching" and "transforms and forms himself" in compliance with the measure of respect and taking into account the interests of all subjects of the educational space. This provision assumes the interdependence and interpenetration of the processes of education and upbringing in higher education, which are subject to the same laws, are organized taking into account the successful socialization of the individual with new thinking and worldview in the context of the dialogue interaction of all subjects of the educational process.

In order for university education to be personality-oriented, its organization must contain the qualities and means of foreseeing the optimal ways of its functioning and development, taking into account the realities of modern society. In the educational process of the university in the context of the use of new means and methods of teaching, it is necessary to identify the most effective forms and methods of activity that increase the effectiveness of learning, taking into account the individual characteristics of students and ensure the accumulation of extrafunctional knowledge, skills, and qualities of an individual that go beyond certain professional training.

The implementation of the new paradigm in higher education ensures not only the expansion of the range of knowledge about the surrounding reality, the appropriation of new information by the student, but also the accumulation of experience in transformative activity, an emotional and creative attitude to the world and man in it, as well as a system of value orientations that determine his behavior in diversity the surrounding world. In practice, this means, firstly, putting the student at the center of the educational process with his needs, motives, aspirations, taking into account the patterns of development, age, individual characteristics of the individual; secondly, the search and updating of the content, forms, methods of educational activities with the reasonable use of intensifying teaching aids at the university; thirdly, the establishment of subject-subject relations between students and teachers in their educational and teaching activities by including them in the process of a humanistically oriented, polysubjective dialogue; fourthly, the construction of the subject-oriented content of the student's educational activity, which provides the possibility of effective development, transformation of the world around and construction of the life trajectory of future specialists, taking into account productive interaction in society.

Among the common fundamental features of the new education paradigm are the humanization and humanitarization of learning, as well as globalization and internationalization. A powerful incentive arises from the use of new scientific achievements or technical means capable of raising pedagogical activity to a qualitatively new level. A striking example is the emergence in the information age of interactive technologies associated with the possibilities of multimedia support for the educational process and the development of various forms of distance learning.

The computer and telecommunications revolutions are having a powerful impact on higher education and science; in most higher educational institutions, the necessary technical base is being created, with the help of the Internet, access to the latest Western and domestic developments in the theory and methods of teaching, access to authentic materials, the ability to communicate with residents of the countries of the language being studied, has greatly expanded the horizons of the modern teacher of higher education. Education is moving to a new methodological and instrumental base, democratization and individualization, personality-oriented education of students and socialization are gaining strength, acquiring qualitatively different forms in connection with Russia's entry into the world arena, the possibilities of their creative self-realization in the educational process are increasing, changing the nature and style of relationships and formation of an atmosphere of co-creation of students and teachers.

Problem situation, questions and tasks for independent work, the recommendation of mandatory and additional literature should be present when lecturing. At the seminar-practical classes, it is possible to carry out such forms of work as: solving pedagogical problems, reviews of scientific and pedagogical periodicals, articles, writing annotations by students, reviews of articles read, preparation of abstracts, reports, messages, etc. The task of the teacher is also to provide opportunities to develop such functions as reflection (the ability to evaluate one's actions), responsibility and autonomy.

According to the American psychologist Carl Rogers, no teacher's efforts make sense, since only that part of the information that is accepted by the student becomes knowledge. And the acceptance of information occurs only in the process of its painstaking comprehension. There is such a category as "actively constructed knowledge", which is the result of a reflective search, the result of learning through personal discoveries. Information that students memorize mechanically, without linking it to their own interests and previously acquired knowledge, is forgotten very quickly. In light of this, the academic subject should be a source for reflective reflection, a study based on the necessary theoretical knowledge.

Thus, as a result of the analysis of the personality-oriented paradigm of higher education, it can be argued that the personality of the student as a subject of life with a need for self-development and self-determination acts as a system-forming factor in the educational process of a higher education institution in this context. The basis of the educational process is the mutually initiative projected living by educational subjects of a range of areas of developing opportunities, the creation of conditions for self-realization and self-development of the future specialist, contributing to his professional development. Personally oriented content of university education involves the transition to the latest modern author's technologies that ensure the activity-creative nature of the interaction of the subjects of the educational process, dialogic communication, the possibility of self-realization, self-presentation, self-affirmation.

The formulation of the problem of the specific content of education in educational systems that implement the personal paradigm is a natural consequence of the development of the concept. Pedagogical knowledge is conceptual if it enriches our ideas about the content of the experience that the pupils have to learn. The turn of education towards the individual, caused by the global processes of humanization and democratization of society, crises in the field of ecology and human socialization, made it relevant to study the content of education in student-centered educational systems.

There is no doubt that the problem of humanization and humanitarization of human education cannot be solved only through special educational bodies. Obviously, not only individual organs, but the entire social mechanism needs a corresponding reconstruction. Society as a source of human essence and acts as a sphere of human education. In this regard, it would be a mistake to consider this problem only as a didactic one. It is no coincidence that the Japanese government's School Reform Report states that education policy is too important to be left to the Ministry of Education alone. This puts us before the need to more clearly define the essence of the didactic approach to the problem of the humanization of education, i.e., the specific place of pedagogical science in solving this problem.

Determining the essence of this approach, we proceed from the idea that has developed in Russian science about the subject of didactics as the most developed section of pedagogy. Pedagogical reality refers to what is "included in pedagogical activity or arises in it." In accordance with this, didactics, as V. V. Kraevsky shows, is called upon to explore the unity of its content and procedural aspects as an essential characteristic of education. The theory of the learning process, if it is developed in line with pedagogy, must ... have a normative output, i.e. not only describe how the process proceeds, but also answer the question of how it should be built and designed. Thus, the concept of personality-oriented education, built in accordance with the didactic approach, is designed to reveal the ways of building a didactic system and didactic process that ensure the achievement of personal development goals.

The didactic system, being the scientific basis (project) of the learning process, is described by the concepts - purpose, content, forms. methods, etc. The didactic process is a purposefully created dynamics of learning situations. The transition from a system to a process is expressed in a well-known transformation of didactic concepts: goal - goal setting; content - educational material; methods - methodology, technology; forms - a system of training sessions; curriculum, academic subject - the logic of the educational process, etc.

The proximity of the conceptual apparatus that describes the didactic system and process is due to the dialectical unity of these two spheres of pedagogical reality. In order for “theory” in this case not to be just a terminological prefix, one should immediately formulate the main criterion of didactic conceptuality, which the theory of personality-oriented learning must meet.

Such is the unity of the didactic system and process. There is every reason - we will show this later - to believe that this criterion is currently

time is not met: under the influence of spontaneous (mainly socio-political) factors, there is a spontaneous humanization and humanitarization of the school educational process, which, however, is restrained by a conservative didactic system, which at one time was based on other functions.

To overcome this contradiction, it is necessary, paradoxical as it may sound, to humanize pedagogical knowledge itself, which should result in a flexible reorientation of the goals, content, organizational structures and teaching methods from the abstractly understood “social order” to the needs and demands of the developing person himself. “Without serious intellectual intelligence, it is no longer possible to directly and directly transfer the so-called social order to the body of the school, even if it is formulated in a package of the most important documents ...” The social order, being meaningful in the categories of pedagogy, acts as

a model of reality that guides goal setting, selection of content and other components of the pedagogical system. At the same time, the model of social reality is only one of the sources for constructing a didactic system, while there are other sources for its construction.

Pedagogical reality proper with its specific patterns, the inner world of a developing person, etc. In this regard, it would be naive to think that a school can do everything that it is “ordered”. Obviously, in general view social order, which required the humanization and humanitarization of education and, ultimately, its personal orientation, can be presented as the need to prepare a person for public life,

V which the following conditions are met:

- rejection of the doctrinal, “finalist” goals of social development in favor of the realization of the actual well-being of a person;

- approval of social, humanistic priorities in the spheres of economy, technology, science, politics, ecology;

- overcoming pre-established standards of consciousness, behavior, thinking and focus on self-development and free will of a person;

- real politicization of public life through the creation of democratic institutions of power, the growth of the rights and responsibilities of people;

- assertion of the economic, social and spiritual independence of a person, etc.

The humanization of the school is an integral part of the humanization of the whole society - a process to which today, despite all the contradictions, there is no alternative. The unity of these processes is due to the place occupied by pedagogical phenomena in the system of social life, their active attitude towards its material and spiritual aspects.

Orientation of education to the individual, related to the “world” problems of civilization, requires careful consideration and consideration of the experience that has been accumulated in this regard in other countries. The “material” source of the growing interest in the West in man, his psychology, “human relations”, in the fusion of technical and humanitarian education, the increasing priority of general education over professional training lies in the intensive changes that the productive forces of society are undergoing today. The American economist R. Reich called the new stage of scientific and technological progress "the era of complex system production and human capital." The productive forces have entered that qualitatively new phase when their progress cannot be ensured by purely technical factors (in the spirit of neopositivism) or by the rationalization of labor alone (classical Taylorism)

without actualization of the forces of self-development, motivation, complicity and co-creation of each producer. Thus, the scientific and technological revolution conditions the transition from the use of a “partial” worker to a versatile worker with “full humanistic development”. American economists X. Bowen, D. Jorgenson, R. Reich call the provision of such development “human investment”, the return on which, according to their rather strict calculations, is “somewhat higher than from investments in physical capital”.

The interpretations of "human capital" given by economists, of course, are not expanded as teachers would like, but still deserve attention. “Human capital” in their view consists of the acquired knowledge, skills, motivation and energy that human beings are endowed with and which can be used over a period of time to produce goods and services.”

IN what is the source of high profitability of “human assets”? Yes, apparently

V the fact that this capital, unlike physical capital, does not morally become obsolete, but has the ability to self-develop.

“Human aspects of work” is more important than technological skills, notes A. Leach,

For the latter become obsolete, while the former are always needed.” The ability to self-development is the main indicator of a person's personal education. From the point of view of economic goals, it would be tempting to separate in “human capital” those knowledge, skills, personal properties that make up its directly “producing” part, but such attempts were not crowned with success. This is what allows us to talk about the inclusion of a person as an integrity in modern production and, as a result, about the impossibility of separating vocational education from general education.

The trend of humanization of education, especially science and technology, is represented in a number of scientific concepts and government programs. For example, the government's science program in England, the government's "School Reform Report" in Japan, the science-technology-society concept of science and technology being developed in the United States, aimed at developing young people's ability to plan social life, critical thinking, desire to update knowledge, etc.

In itself, the development of science and technology outside the “human dimension” cannot be a panacea for human suffering. The personal orientation of education presupposes the humanistic development of the entire environment that forms a person. A. Wirth says that the question is not to prepare a person for a profession, but “how to create such professions that simultaneously serve as an expression of the individual and are socially useful.” In a word, there is every reason to believe that the construction of a personality-oriented education belongs to the number of universal problems and values, just like education itself, by the way.

IN A number of works by domestic authors attempt to indicate specific methods for ensuring personal orientation in the humanities and natural sciences. It is noted that this implies a connection with life, the unity of the emotional and rational, historicism, the removal of psychological pressure, the ethical orientation of education, etc. It is also proposed to attribute the formation of ecological thinking and “a sense of responsibility for what a person does on Earth”, the development of “holistic human thinking” to the sphere of personal orientation.

in a purely empirical way without developing a general conceptual idea of ​​the essence of personality-oriented education. Without such an idea, it is impossible to determine what the degree of unity of the emotional and rational should be, or what should be the connection between learning and life, so that the principle of personal orientation of education, and not some other, is realized. In this case, the concept with its predictive, heuristic, selective and normative functions is just what is needed. A prerequisite for the development of a pedagogical concept is the development of a philosophical, general scientific understanding of the problem of student-centered education. “The presence of a concept always precedes the system representation of an object.”

Orientation of education to the personality "immediately turns into a dialogue about the personal self-justification of a person." When talking about the integrity of humanistic thinking (B. M. Nemensky), one should keep in mind the integrity of its subject area (what are we thinking about?), The basis of which is a person as a kind of quintessence of the universe, and the integrity of the method - the openness of this thinking to everyone cultures, a true dialectic. A violation of the principles of the personal approach is the formulation of the educational goal in “impersonal”, non-characterological categories that express the functional-activity, behavioral, performance, “individual”, and non-personal characteristics of a person. This takes place when expressing the pedagogical goal in terms of “training”, “readiness”, “training”, “education”, etc. This is how one of the goals of the school’s activity is formulated: “... Economic readiness (or readiness for economic activity) - complex structural formation. It includes the following main components: economic needs and interests; economic general education; economically conscious attitude to work, to the products of labor and the natural environment...”.

Such a formulation, strictly speaking, hardly expresses the goal of education, because it is not clear what in the moral sense is meant by “attitude towards work”, “need” in what and “interest” in what. The specified formulation of the goal is schematic, since the actual “human” qualities of the pupil are lost in it. “Goals-readiness” are due to an incorrect understanding of the social order itself, the true interests of society. The latter consist not only in preparing a person for something, but also in preparing an ordinary person. Social needs, in the name of which the process of education is deployed, are, in the final analysis, the needs of specific people, and not something self-sufficient. Violation of humanistic ideals is also an attempt to formulate goals in the form of some universal “models”, according to which it would be necessary to “measure” (diagnose) and correct the “education” of specific individuals. Such “models of personality”, as a rule, were of a total ideological nature and could in no way claim to reflect its comprehensiveness.

What are the origins of the difficulties in developing the pedagogical concept of goal-setting? In the well-known fetishization of our ideas about society as something to be worshipped! Then it is only necessary to develop the personality to the level of its requirements.

We know what this official doctrine once led to: to the subordination of the individual not even to society, but to the state! A regime in which the official ideology is the measure of all the goals of education cannot give rise to a comprehensively developed personality, because in its essence it is oriented towards its one-sidedness. So, V.N. Sagatovsky writes that to form a harmonious personality means “to grow the personal to the level of the public, so that the latter is accepted as one’s internal”, etc. It is clear, however, that the concept “to the level of the public”

may have different meanings. Not only a person should be a “cast” of society, but society should also bear the traits of a personality - its humanity, rationality, freedom, selectivity.

Unfortunately, the system of educational goals included only those tasks that “come directly from social needs ... The need to form an individual lifestyle, to provide conditions for the full living of each stage of childhood, adolescence, youth, and maturity was not formulated, clearly and precisely. ; Therefore, the task of forming the ability for socio-cultural self-determination as a core property of the personality was not set either.

Instead of abstract-functional (i.e., expressing some general preparedness for some social function) “readiness goals” (for work, for family life, for self-education, for military service, etc.), it is necessary to put as a basis goals are integral guidelines that express the enduring universal properties of an individual - responsibility for one's actions, optimism and love of life, respect for elders and the desire to help the younger, a creative approach to business, the ability to overcome oneself and achieve goals, the ability to listen to someone else's opinion and boldly express one's own.

The dominance of the universal component for educational purposes requires a different approach to the study of man as the “material” for pedagogy. First of all, instead of functional study (in the function of a schoolchild, student, teacher, worker), it is necessary to study him himself, without predetermined boundaries and standards. Presenting the goal of education and upbringing as a “personality model” is unproductive, that is, it inevitably leads to “fitting” to the model of real personalities. It is even more harmful if this “model” is built on the basis of obsolete theoretical dogmas and doctrines. “It is difficult for reason to imagine progress without definitions formulated in old concepts and on the basis of the passed stages of progress itself ... definitions. This already imposes on the new measure of the old in advance... The real cultural-historical progress is different in that it not only realizes movement in the previous dimensions and according to the old criteria, but, removing them in itself, creates unforeseen dimensions, making the cultural world richer, more multifaceted in its very foundations.”

The goals of shaping a person for certain “functions”, in particular “for work”, are generated by the dominance of technocratic in society, or, in the words of V.V. Davydov, “material thinking”, suspicion and distrust in relation to the idea of ​​free development of the individual. An example of technocracy in pedagogy is the labor training of students provided for by the “reform” of 1984, in accordance with which children and parents were limited in the rights of professional and educational choice. In this regard, one cannot fail to note the elements of truth in the criticism of the reform that was voiced by Western publicists: “... Soviet parents, when they manage to find an apartment, thereby not only determine the school for their child, but also the profession ... and therefore , all of it working life". Such a non-democratic system should be replaced by “open” education, which makes it possible to choose the subject composition (curriculum), content, forms and methods of teaching, and ways of communicating with the teacher. The division in the structure of the pedagogical goal of the educational and upbringing components loses its meaning. It is as unified as the emerging personality and the whole process of its formation. Personal properties are the same knowledge and skills, but they have received a special personal meaning, significance in the regulation of human behavior. The formation of attitudes, beliefs, value orientations is preceded by the emergence of relevant knowledge, skills, and the accumulation of life experience. No knowledge - no opinions about them, beliefs and corresponding

his behavior (G. I. Shkolnik).

There are other approaches to solving this problem that affirm the leading role of moral norms and personal experience in the development of the individual. According to I. S. Maryenko, “It is morality, and not education, that determines the measure and significance of knowledge...”. V. S. Ilyin wrote: “One of the typical facts of hypertrophy...

is the re-evaluation of the role of knowledge for a person. Such hypertrophy of the role of knowledge obscures the vision of how the formation of the social maturity of the individual takes place ... That is why it is so necessary to link the process of equipping students with versatile knowledge with the formation of the personality as a whole.

Respecting the positions of these authors, I believe that the dispute about what to give preference to - knowledge or morality, "cognitive elements" or "personality as a whole" - in this case is meaningless. Moral norms and all sorts of other value orientations that have not become the property of consciousness cannot act as effective regulators of human behavior. But they cannot become the property of consciousness without taking the form of the content of education and upbringing, which must be assimilated. Another thing is that the content of personality-oriented education is not reduced to a set of concepts, methods of activity, cognitive and practical operations, but also includes intersubjective communication that carries moral potential, personal experience. Therefore, a clarification suggests itself: it is not the role of knowledge that is exaggerated, but the structural composition of the elements of the content of education, its adequacy to the humanistic goals of the school, is violated. And further. The personality, its spiritual world, is undoubtedly different from the information about the outside world, from those objectively existing assessments and opinions that are embedded in the content of the educational material. All these elements undergo a special “processing” in the mind of the learning subject. However, it cannot be denied that this experience must initially exist in the form of content - sensual, verbal or practical-operational. In this sense, both the method and the form of education also act as a source of personal knowledge, experience, and feelings.

The roots of shortcomings in the human development of a person should be sought not only in the authoritarian communication between teachers and students, although this is undoubtedly an important issue, but also in the very content and organization of education. It is here, ultimately, that a person is projected who does not receive general humanitarian knowledge, which means that he thinks in narrow, pragmatic concepts, “natural” ideas and therefore is obviously irresponsible. Dry logic, not enriched with the color of feelings, wooden prudence, not knowing beauty, utilitarianism, not knowing kindness, inevitably turn into damage to society.

Personally oriented education is an education that establishes a person's connection with all objective reality, and not only with the so-called "society". “Man is a universal object, a particle of infinite nature, and therefore his essence and real wealth is in the wealth of relationships with all reality, including, of course, the system of social relations.” But since these relations of a person with the world of real nature can be adequately assimilated only through natural science education, then it must also be oriented towards the individual, humanized. It should also be noted that humanized natural-science knowledge is ultimately a person's knowledge of himself. Thanks to this self-knowledge, the effectiveness of knowledge about the world outside of man also increases. “The mastery of the external world by man, the possibility of achieving vital goals, increasingly reveals its dependence on

self-mastery…”

The disadvantage of modern education is that knowledge about the integral world of man and the experience of integral activity in this world turned out to be relegated to the background in comparison with the scientific “monoculture”, by the way, sometimes not even scientific, but superficial informational. In school education, "the logical component ... prevails to the detriment of the historical-cultural and socio-cultural component of knowledge."

Thus, taking into account the movement of pedagogical thought, we can presumably single out the following directions for the development of the content of natural science education in connection with its personal orientation.

The main function of the content of such education is to provide a holistic orientation in the world from the standpoint of human interests - the main product of the genesis of nature, society and self-development of the spirit. In this regard, natural science education presupposes such a level and nature of assimilation of the content of the sciences of nature, at which this knowledge can be effectively used to assert the interests of a person, optimize his relations with the world of nature, technology and knowledge.

In order to develop such content of education, it is necessary to resolutely abandon the formulation of goals through functional-performing attitudes (“readiness” for various social functions), a transition to a personal-ethical composition of educational goals is necessary. The formulation of the goals of education, including the natural sciences, should ensure the rejection of the universal models of “learning” and “education” and orient the educational process towards the formation of an individual style of life and thinking, the full living of each of its stages, the sociocultural and ideological self-determination of each individual.

The humanization of education is impossible without its openness to many cultures, both historically and socio-pedagogically. The humanistic trend in education requires the versatility of its content, strengthening the connection with life, historicism, free thinking and tolerance, the ethical and ecological orientation of the unity of the emotional and rational rejection of the standardization and unification of education; an increase in the role of reflective knowledge, as well as skills that orient the student to subsequent continuous education.

Given these trends in the development of the content of humanistically oriented education, it is advisable to move on to the consideration of the procedural aspect of education in terms of its personal orientation. The very first and fairly indisputable statement is that the designed training should contain situations that require moral experience and adequate action of the student. “Each moral conflict situation that requires a conscious-volitional effort from an individual forms him as a person, and the decision made in this situation can be an indicator of his moral personal maturity.

At the same time, the moral orientation of education is not the same as “practical”, “polytechnical”, etc. It cannot be turned into some kind of moral training. The training of “moral behavior” is most often limited to the sphere of behavior itself, while personal orientation is associated with “moral conflict”, conscious-volitional efforts of the individual. What is the place, methods of “presentation”, dosage of such situations in the educational process? It is clear that traditional education, in which all spheres of the human world were reduced to informing about these spheres, cannot perform such a function. “No knowledge about the relationship of people to the world and

each other will not replace the relationship itself.

The procedural aspect of learning in the context of its personal orientation is expressed in a change in the motivation for the assimilation and application of knowledge: from a means of only “acquiring new knowledge” to a means of self-affirmation through the use of this knowledge in practice. This self-affirmation is a necessary component of “mental productive labor” (in the words of D.I. Feldstein). it is necessary to guide the student so that he masters the relevant personal experience, what is the technology for creating such situations. The system of methods necessary for this should be, like any other, a combination of various elements, in this case, types of training. In its most general form, it can be assumed that it will include types of direct and contextual learning, interactive and instructive, informing and research, individual and collective, externally regulated and self-educational. Learning in its organization should be as diverse as what is taught, i.e., the personal experience of the individual.

What are the trends in the development of organizational, methodological, procedural and technological aspects of education in terms of its personal orientation? Best practice and recent research shows that learning and learning is effective when it is organically combined with others - communication, play, economic and technical practice. As a trend, one can also single out the strengthening of the thematic, “modular” approach to the lesson, when intra-subject and inter-subject material is concentrated around its core idea, related to the “human dimension” of the problem being studied. The didactic basis of this approach to the lesson is “enlargement of the didactic unit”, and the psychological one is “immersion”, i.e. comprehensive deep orientation in the topic.

There is no doubt that the diversity of lines of communication between participants in the educational process is of fundamental importance for the personal orientation of education. The method of educational work is not set only by the teacher. It is the result of the interaction of learning and the child's personal experience. The style of communication between the student and the teacher is set by those components of the content of education, due to which a certain activity is “expected” from the student and the teacher, and not just “learning something”.

The fundamental role of communication in educational process noted repeatedly. Speech activity in the assimilation of knowledge helps the student evaluate himself from the point of view of communication partners, that is, the correctness, accuracy, clarity and intelligibility of speech for others. Such a “detached” attitude to one’s speech action also contributes to the awareness of one’s own thought.

Summarizing what has been said, one can see in the procedural and methodological side of education the action of the same tendencies of humanization as in its content sphere. We are talking about the consistent expansion of the boundaries of communication, orientation, choice - from the choice of forms and methods to the choice of content and learning objectives. The essential feature of this process is the inclusion of the activity of learning in the structure of self-development processes and, as a result, the acquisition by the trainee of new

life meanings.

Technocratically organized education, on the contrary, is poor in its vital content. How not to recall in this connection the famous study by B. M. Teplov about Mozart and Salieri. “Composing music was included in Mozart’s life, being a kind of experience of life’s meanings, while for Salieri there were no meanings other than musical ones, and music, turning into the only and absolute meaning, fatally became meaningless...”.

The same semantic degeneration is also undergoing training in the conditions of technocratic education “for the sake of the program”, “learning the material”. The semantic value, the “significance” of a doctrine is the higher, the more fully its real operating motive expresses the universal value (meaning) of science and knowledge.

Availability question special kind the content of education related to the development of personality is still open. So, in the fundamental monograph by N.A. Alekseev “Person-centered learning: questions of theory and practice”, there is no special section devoted to this type of educational content. True, revealing the essence of student-centered learning, he uses the concept of personal experience. Its “inclusion” in the content of education is adequate to the fact that certain actions and experiences of the subject are required. “Contentively, the personal experience of experiencing is provided due to the inconsistency of points of view, the inconsistency of the hierarchy of meanings, the ambiguity of the educational text, changes in status, etc., given in the educational situation.” Significant progress in the development of theoretical and methodological

the basis for the content of personality-oriented education was the doctoral dissertation of L.M. Perminova. The construction of modern education is such that the subject is, as it were, torn away from education, although the latter should be the product of his own activity. The construction of the content of education is presented by the author as a kind of historical, multi-level process of its comprehension. In this regard, several stages or approaches to the construction of the content of education are distinguished: 1) functional-instrumental, in which society assigns certain knowledge and skills to the individual and defines them as “useful” for him; 2) a structurally invariant approach, in which a certain taxonomy of goals, elements of education or basic activities is specified; 3) a sociocultural approach that focuses on multifunctionality, the subjectivity of education, and the life context of a person. In many works devoted to the humanization and humanitarization of education,

the question of what this “humanitarianism” actually consists of, what kind of organization of the content of education it is provided for, is not disclosed. So, N.I. Nepomnyashchiy believes that “humanitarian education in a higher technical school, considered as an aspect of its humanization, should give an idea of ​​the many possible foundations of the human sciences, the interdisciplinary analysis of which by students will solve the main task - expanding the scope of their worldview ... ”Will the “multiple bases ... of sciences” serve as the basis for the formation of a humanitarian-oriented person? There is no answer to this question in the work.

A.I. Uman is talking about “meaningful provision of the educational process.” In this case, the assumption arises that the most important thing is the educational activity itself, which needs to be “provided with content”.

The traditional knowledge paradigm of education leads to the fact that “as for

for students, and for those who teach, the content of education turns out to be alien, external, a priori given. In this sense, it turns out to be almost equally alienated from both subjects. pedagogical process(almost - because the teacher himself nevertheless chose teaching, for example, physics, as the business of his life; the student, as a rule, is faced with the need to study it not at all of his own free will). “The attachment of education to a specific “subject”, to a certain functional-subject area, leads, according to Yu.I. we are talking about “culturological personality-oriented education”, in which “the humanitarian component of the content is strengthened,

educational technologies are humanized.” What is the content of education

V such a school? It is “characterized by tendencies towards encyclopedic, knowledge integration, humanistic and aesthetic orientation...”

IN accordance with the concept we have adopted, we are talking about such content of education, the mastery of which would lead to the actual personal development formed individual, or, using the conceptual apparatus introduced by us, to the formation of his personal functions. We emphasize once again that personality-oriented education in our understanding is not limited to a narrowly understood “ personal approach” as a certain procedural characteristic of the activities of teachers (according to A. Rusakov, this “approach” has

V mind the equality of children, their right to make mistakes, security, a socio-playing way of activity, a presentation by the teacher of the properties of his own personality, etc.), but involves the construction of exactly personality education with all the attributes necessary for such education - goals, content, technologies. With different variations of this kind of position, a large group of researchers adheres to - N.V. Aleksev, E.V. Bondarevskaya, N.F. Golovanova, V.I. Danilchuk, V.I. Zagvyazinsky, A.V. .Klarin, M.Polani, V.I.Slobodchikov, V.A.Shkuratov, I.S.Yakimanskaya and others. personal way of being of the individual.

Turning to the content of education as the leading problem of modern pedagogy, it is not difficult to see how the very content of the corresponding concept has undergone significant changes over the past decades. Until about the end of the 60s, the content of education was considered in fact as a synonym for the foundations of sciences, which, after some didactic processing, usually associated with the implementation of traditional didactic principles of visibility, accessibility, systematicity, etc., were presented to the teacher and students in the form of the so-called ZUNs - knowledge, skills and abilities. Today, such an idea of ​​the content of education looks clearly limited. A gap in the traditional didactic worldview has been pierced thanks to major research and development in the field of content, structure and general methodology for designing the content of education. We are talking primarily about the works of representatives of a large domestic school of didacticists - I.K. Zhuravlev, L.Ya. Zorina, V.S. Ilyin, V.V. Kraevsky, V.S. Lednev, I.Ya. .N.Skatkina, V.S.Tsetlin and others. The content of education, as they showed, is not limited to the basics of science, but includes components from various areas of culture or, in other words, various types of experience. In the theory of I.Ya. Lerner, for example, four types of experience are distinguished - the experience of using the so-called “ready-made knowledge” for orientation in life-practical and cognitive situations, the experience of using also pre-established

ways to do various kinds human activity (V.S. Lednev suggested that mastering these activities be the basis for the content of general education), the experience of creative activity, the experience of an emotional and value attitude to the world. The first three types of experience are associated with the content, organization, regulation or form of a particular objective activity. Those. In this case, we are talking about the assimilation of objective culture. More precisely, an experience that can be objectified, designated, designed in the form of a sign, a prescription. Strictly speaking, emotional value experience can also be represented in a sign-subject form, for example, in the form of an ethical norm, prescription, or rule of conduct. This rule can be assimilated and even fulfilled, which, however, does not mean its transformation into the personal experience of the individual. Personal experience is the experience of meaning, a kind of inclusion of a given subject, activity (with its goals, process, expected results, etc.) in the context of a person’s life, it is an objective value that has become a subjective attitude, view, conviction, and one’s own conclusion from the experience.

The formation of this kind of experience cannot be ensured through a simple mechanism of internalization according to the theory of Vygotsky - Leontiev, or through the apparatus of associations according to the concept of Menchinskaya - Shevarev, through the inclusion of a cognizable object in new connections and relationships, as the supporters of the culturological theory of thinking of Rubinstein - Brushlinsky represented. The theory of the genesis of a concept from an object-manipulative form to the form of a method of mental action does not work here either, as it is presented in the theory learning activities Galperin - Davydov, etc. Thus, we are talking about a qualitatively new type of content of education and the special nature of the means of its assimilation.

Failure to understand this led in practice to the fact that the components of the content of education, “responsible” for the formation of personal experience, were reduced to subject-cognitive experience.

Personal experience, which was discussed in the conceptual section of the monograph, does not oppose cultural, social experience, the elements of which traditionally constituted the content of education. Personal experience is the experience of performing one of the activities, achieving certain results in this activity and evaluating them. The only specificity is that we are talking about the experience of the individual's work on the organization of his inner world: meanings, impressions, conclusions from the experience. To form a personal experience, if the term “formation” is generally used in this case, means to develop a culture for the student to perform this personality-developing, personal-creative (self-creating, self-organizing) activity. This activity, more precisely, meta-activity (the concept of meta-activity is considered in the dissertation of our doctoral student E.A. Kryukova), since it does not have a special subject area, it consists of certain actions (meta-actions). In fact, this is what we called personality functions above. Among them - the function of choice (landmark, assessment, decision, etc.) and the rationale for this choice; the function of accumulation and revision of personal meanings; awareness and acceptance of the need to be responsible for decisions made and for deeds in general ...

In the dissertation of A.V. Zelentsova, made under our supervision, it is noted: “The specificity of personal experience as a component of the content of education lies in the fact that it has both a content (“building material” of personal functions, properties of an individual) and a procedural one (change “ experiences”, subjective activity of the student) aspects. Personal experience is autonomous in relation to the subject content of academic disciplines. It is characterized by specific methods of development, involving

the entry of the subject into a personality-developing educational situation, and a sense-forming role in relation to other components of the content of education. ”We note at the same time that to call personal experience an element of content

education is possible only with a large degree of conventionality. We refer it to the sphere of the content of education only because it forms the personal sphere of the individual. In reality, for the first time, we are dealing with education that does not have an obvious subject form and cannot be put on the schedule in the form of an academic subject. The activity that the pupil performs in the sphere of his personal experience (meta-activity) is sharply different from his activity in solving, say, physical problems or studying historiographic documentation. First, it is “reliably” protected by appropriate psychological mechanisms. The world of meanings is truly a spiritual world, i.e. that a person, in the words of one literary hero, “thinks to himself,” and we cannot penetrate it in trivial ways. And as a result of this, secondly, we cannot manage this activity, at least by traditional pedagogical means. The inaccessibility and “uncontrollability” of this sphere of human life does not mean at all that it should be attributed to the area of ​​pure irrationality and taken out of the limits of the pedagogical responsibility of society. The personal world of a person needs culture and education no less than the spheres of literacy, natural science orientation, etiquette, etc. This is exactly what the concepts of personal functions and personal experience of the pupil introduced by us are aimed at. Personal functions are a kind of existence, life functions of a person, subject to certain norms of culture and sociality, and therefore subject to special (personally-oriented) education and upbringing. The experience of being a person (personal experience) can be mastered only on the basis of subtle assimilation and experience of other personalities.

Action can be considered as the initial unit of personal experience. subjectification, developing a subjective image of the life situation in which the person finds himself, assessing it, identifying it with some kind of personally “approved” norms, with previously established personal experience. It is important to emphasize that a person evaluates his own life situation, and not just knowledge or a learning task. If we want the latter to acquire personal meaning, we must enter with this knowledge or some other kind of experience into the life situation of the individual. Personal experience can be claimed and developed by the subject himself in the course of real relationships, experiences that affect his personal values ​​and meanings in the educational process. This implies the entry of the subject into a specific personality-developing educational situation. In its structure, one can single out: a) a teacher - the bearer of personal experience as a specific type of content of education; b) a student who feels the need for personal self-development and the corresponding lack of personal experience in the area where he would like to realize himself; c) the "factorial field" of a personality-oriented situation - a personally significant (attractive for the individual) life activity (its fragment, problem), in the performance of which the pupil's personal functions are required; d) procedural components of the situation - tasks of a different objective nature with a personal context, a system of dialogues with a carrier of personal experience, game imitation of the social space of personal self-realization (roles, conflicts, expectations, relationships with referents of other experience, etc.).

The presented model of a personality-oriented situation is quite abstract, since in reality each type of experience of a person and

according to the personal property that is formed due to this experience, a quite definite adequate pedagogical situation, requiring this type of personal development, should be put in correspondence.

In the strict sense of the word, as such, personal experience is not an integral part of the content of education. Only a fragment of culture, activity, behavior, relations can become a part of this content. In this regard, I.Ya. Lerner spoke about the experience of an emotionally valuable attitude to the world, to life situations. A person-oriented situation is an exteriorized, pedagogically interpreted model of such a personal relationship, this type of experience. Consequently, the construction of a new type of educational content will initially be a design of the situation for the formation of the student's personal experience.

Following the well-known didactic theory (I.K. Zhuravlev, V.V. Kraevsky, I.Ya. Lerner) that the content of education is a multi-level structure (the level of the theoretical model, the level of the subject, the level of the content of educational material, etc.), it is necessary to determine ways of presenting the content of student-centered education on various levels. As for the general theoretical model of the content of education, here the picture is determined by the general concept outlined above: the experience of the individual performing the basic personal functions should be included in the general model of education with the same necessity as the experience of orientation in the surrounding world (knowledge), the experience of reproducing the ways of human activities, creative experience in various fields. Concerning the levels of the educational subject and educational material, the question of the functioning of personal experience here needs special consideration. Personal experience is not included in the content of the subject and the specific material of the lesson. He can't "turn on" anywhere at all. It is acquired by the subject, who is included in a certain life activity and the conditions associated with it. For the first time, there is a situation where content and process design are inseparable.

The term “projecting”, so familiar to modern didactics, in this case has no more meaning than if we were talking about designing, say, life circumstances, human relationships, life, friendship, love, etc. Thus, we should talk about a qualitatively new integrity of the educational system, in which the process of learning in the narrow sense of the word is organically included in the situation of personality development.

The category of personal experience acts as a kind of regulator in designing the content of education. Such components (ideas, theories, concepts, methods of activity, problems, worldview collisions, tasks, relationships, etc.) with such specific content should be introduced into its structure, the development of which must necessarily involve the student metaactivities with its specific actions of evaluating, reflecting, ordering and “ranking” one’s own impressions, making decisions and foreseeing their consequences, etc. The latter involves the actualization (and construction!) tasks that lead students to conclusions about the meaning and purpose of the cognitive and transformative activity of a person is presented in the dissertation of Yu.D. Zarubin, completed under our supervision). The personal-semantic components of the material correspond to the social situation of the development of students, suggest a kind of concentration of moral, social-civil, spiritual-aesthetic problems “in a given segment of socio-cultural experience” (A.V. Zelentsova). Moreover, these “personal-demanding” components themselves

they must answer to their “personal nature”, i.e. variable, individualized, selective, suggest the ambiguity of their perception and interpretation.

The generalization of the experience of personal orientation of school disciplines, presented in the dissertations of V.I. Danilchuk, Yu.D. Zarubin, A.V. didactic strategies updating the personal experience of students. The first of these strategies is associated with the use of one's own personality-developing potential of educational subjects. So the potential of educational subjects with a leading knowledge component (according to the classification of I.K. Zhuravlev) is associated with such properties that are significant for the individual scientific knowledge as dialogue (of cultures and scientific schools!), tolerance of members of the scientific community to each other's ideas, hypothetical scientific thinking, the need for reflection and responsibility for the upheld scientific approaches and principles, creativity and freedom in cognition, the joy of discovery, aesthetic satisfaction from discovery with the application value (and not purely logical!) regulators of cognition.

The objects of the activity cycle are just as diverse in their personality-developing possibilities. Thus, linguistic disciplines involve the perception of the beauty of language, the joy of the ability to express one's feelings through it, to make contact with carriers of other opinions and views, to think through one's speech actions and be responsible for them. Finally, subjects in which elements of creative and emotional value experience are the leading components are, in fact, specifically focused on the development of what we call the personal functions of students, although in real practice their educational functions are often reduced to knowledge-subject ones. Second strategy the actualization of the personal functions of students on the basis of the reconstruction of the content of academic disciplines is associated with the direct introduction of “additional” humanitarian information, with the presentation of this course in the context of universal humanitarian problems, its consideration in the context of an integral culture, various spheres and tasks of human social practice. In other words, the science under study is considered in connection with the spiritual, moral, environmental problems that are generated by modern civilization. Subjects in which the emotional-value content is the leading component need to involve additional personality-oriented information to a lesser extent, however, their content does not in itself acquire the status of personal experience, but only when the student discovers his own in the “texts” presented. context. And the task of the teacher here is to enter with this text into the sphere of real life problems of the student related to his self-affirmation.

Third strategy actualization of the personal experience of students is associated mainly with the procedural aspect of learning, with the ways of organizing the learning activity of students. The essence of this strategy is to create qualitatively new meaningful forms of educational communication that change the position of the student in educational activities, to develop and coordinate individual routes of cognition with students, etc.

The student-oriented reconstruction of a subject differs in its scale: it may involve the creation of a qualitatively new (“author's”) course, the development of individual topics or problems, and the design of educational situations. The specificity of the “personal” reconstruction of an educational subject, in that it cannot be carried out without a teacher, and ideally without a student, fully corresponds to the nature of personal experience as an “actual” experience. This is its difference from the subject experience, which can be developed outside the school and the teacher in such a way

called experts. As for the personal existence of an individual, here everyone is a “specialist” for himself.

Designing the content of a personality-oriented education means designing a personality-oriented situation, the place of the subject, topic, material being studied in the value system of class students (of a certain age, who have personal experience known to the teacher - a motivational-semantic sphere).

The actualization of personal experience does not in any way interfere with the assimilation of the actual subject content of the course being studied, moreover, the strengthening of the personal-semantic position of students favors the activation of their learning activities, the depth of “penetration” into the subject being studied. Below we will talk about the special readiness of the teacher to work within the framework of the personal paradigm. The most complete personality-oriented reconstruction of the content of an educational subject on the example of one of the disciplines was presented in the doctoral dissertation of V.I. experience of personal and humanitarian orientation in the subject under study, which implies a methodological reflection of physical knowledge, a holistic perception of the historical and successive development of physics, the role of scientific creativity and the moral and spiritual position of the creators of physical science. this component “provokes” those experiences that lead to the formation of personal experience!) cannot be reduced to a simple addition of humanitarian (scientific, cultural, historical, life-descriptive, etc.) information, although the latter in itself is not excluded in the construction of profile courses in physics. At the heart of personal

developmental education is the inclusion of students in a special type of cognitive activity, which is aimed at mastering not only the physical content itself, but also at the student’s self-determination in relation to the meaning and value of physical knowledge, at identifying methods specific to physical science for comprehending the laws of nature.

In the strategies of physical cognition themselves, a student, with the correct organization of his methodological orientation, can develop personally significant worldview conclusions. The following can be named as such strategies: the priority of fact over theory as an opportunity to form in a student a desire for objective truth as a morally valuable quality; verifiability of scientific statements in physics as a prerequisite for the responsibility of the subject for any judgments and assessments; the principle of conformity as a factor in the formation of the general humanitarian concept of the continuity of cultures; the principle of complementarity as a prerequisite for dialogue and tolerance in the thinking of students of physics; mastering methodological knowledge as a factor of general reflexivity, awareness and arbitrariness of the student's behavior; creativity as an aesthetic value, as a way to comprehend the beauty of the human mind and spirit through creative activity in the study of physics. The discovery by students of these values ​​immanently contained in the field of physical knowledge is possible, as shown in the work of V.I. in search of the meaning of physical knowledge. The creation of a situation of such orientation is ensured by the use of personality-developing

Hello friends!

This is an abbreviated text version of the webinar that took place yesterday. An audio version of the webinar will be available shortly.

So, paradigms and their impact on human life.

Sometimes people work day and night on their goals (career, business, relationships), but year after year they don't achieve it. Why is this happening? I believe that one of the main reasons is human paradigms.

And I would like to start our communication with a film that shows how we miss opportunities due to destructive paradigms, when these opportunities are right in front of our noses.

"You just need to look both ways." But you can look and not see, as we see from this excerpt from the film. As funny as it may seem, many of us are similarly missing out on opportunities from various areas of our lives. Why is this happening? And how do we learn to see the opportunities that life provides us constantly?

1. What is a paradigm?

The word paradigm comes from the Greek language. In Greek, this word means "example, model, model." It was originally a scientific term, which in our time is most often used in the sense of "theory", "representation", "concept" or "belief system". In a more general sense, this is how we "see" the world, - not in the sense of vision, but in the sense of perception, understanding, interpretation. Our thought patterns.

Each of us has more than one or two such patterns of thinking. From childhood to the present day, we acquire new and new patterns of thinking. Every day we learn how to act in this world and each new rule is “recorded” in our brain as a new paradigm. “If - then”, for example, “if I behave well, then mom and dad will love me”, “if I have financial savings, then I can open my own business”, “if I raise my hand to the fire, it will burn her.” Paradigms are what we acquire from our life experience, from what we are told, from what we have seen and what conclusions we have drawn. And the more confirmation we get about something, the stronger the paradigm becomes in our minds. And of course, when we are small children, and it is known that the brain of a child absorbs information like a sponge, paradigms very, very easily penetrate our consciousness.

Those. from the very moment when a person was born, he tries to understand this world - how this world works, how he can live and act in this world. A person sees something around him and creates, on a subconscious level, thought patterns that in the future are intended to help him live in the world, i.e. Ultimately, these patterns help a person understand how to act in our world. The person, as it were, says to himself: “I know that if this happens, then I need to act in such and such a way.” Paradigms create our individual and subjective world. A world that seems right to a person.

The easiest way to imagine what a paradigm is is to imagine everything that is inside our mind as a mental map. Everything that is on this map is our world in which we live. Everything that is outside this map, we do not see and cannot even imagine that it exists. But as you understand, our world is much larger than what is on the mental map of each of us. And until we open new places on the map, they will be inaccessible to us.

All What happens to us in life, we explain to ourselves on the basis of these mental maps. We are rarely interested in their accuracy. Usually we do not even suspect that we have these so-called cards. We simply assume that we see things as they really are, or as they should be based on the information we have.

From such assumptions, all our attitudes and all our behavior. How we see things becomes the source of how we think and how we act. Ultimately, this is our life.

I said earlier that paradigms are meant to help a person live in this world. What are paradigms for? Where do they help? Paradigms are designed to make our lives easier. In order not to have to learn everything anew every time, we understand (subjectively) how the world works and put it in a certain form in our memory.

For example, having cut myself with a knife once, I develop a paradigm forever: “A knife can cut.” This is a useful paradigm that will be used many times in my life. But if a friend deceived me in childhood and I created a paradigm: “People cannot be trusted” and then I don’t make friends with people for many years, then this paradigm can be very harmful and leave me alone for many years. Although I won't even realize why I don't have friends, and that incident from childhood may even be forgotten (erased from my consciousness, but stored in the subconscious).

So, the paradigm is how a person perceives, understands and interprets the world around him, and it (the paradigm) further influences the process of a person's life. Paradigms define a person's thinking, feelings and reactions to certain things in life. It is important to note that paradigms define how we see things, not how things actually are..

Now I want to show you another short film. The film is in English, but everything is clear there. You need to count how many times people in white shirts pass the ball to each other.

Who among those who were not familiar with this film until today and saw a gorilla? Who hasn't seen it?

When we are focused on something specific that is on our mental map, we are simply not able to notice anything new, although it may be right in front of us.

2. Paradigm Examples

One of the strongest paradigms modern man it is a paradigm that money can only be obtained through hard work. Only by working hard and hard you can earn a lot of money. This is exactly what is revealed on the mental map of a certain person. But after all, we all know examples from life when people have a stable and high income without spending 9 or 10 hours a day of their lives on it. And such examples are by no means isolated. So what is the difference between the person who believes that making money is hard work and the one who believes that money is a tool and you can even make money with pleasure? The difference is in the paradigms - the first has an open territory on its mental map, where it says “Money is hard work”, while the second on the mental map is much simpler “Money is a means, and there are no problems in achieving it”.

Another example from life. A woman in her 40s has been dreaming for many years of holding seminars on a topic she knows well and loves very much. But for many years of her dreams, she never tried to do this. It's just that every time she approached this dream, she was seized by fear, the cause of which she could not determine, and she refused to move towards the goal. Her friend suggested that she take a coaching course in the hope that it would help her start teaching workshops.

The coaching process revealed the cause that had kept her from realizing her potential for so many years. She was the younger sister of two brothers, and there was an unspoken rule in the family that “a woman's place is in the kitchen,” and not in self-realization. Parents encouraged the brothers in the implementation of their ideas, prepared them for universities, and parents showed attention to their sister only when she was quiet and calm and helped her mother with the housework.

As a result, the girl developed a paradigm that when she is calm, without personal desires and ambitions, then she is loved and accepted in the family. And when she occasionally tried to be proactive, to express her opinion, then in the family this was immediately “cut down in the bud” and they made it clear to her that they did not want to see her in such a state.

As an adult, her idea of ​​holding seminars was associated with her initiative and self-realization, and this automatically raised her childhood paradigm “initiative = rejection, rejection” - this was the reason for her fears.

Realizing this paradigm, and changing it to a new paradigm “initiative is self-realization”, she recently opened her own company and now conducts seminars on her favorite topic.

By the way, sometimes only by defining the paradigm that hinders you, a person thereby achieves great achievements in life.

Question: Friends, what examples of paradigms can you give? Maybe even from personal life.

One of my destructive paradigms: I have to do everything perfectly (better than others) in order to succeed in life. So I was a perfectionist for many years and this paradigm had a very strong influence on my life. It had a very negative impact. I didn’t do a lot of things that I would have liked so much, because I thought: “I won’t do it ideally anyway, so why even start?” And I didn’t understand what to do well, it’s still better than not doing it at all.

I also remembered the paradigm in one of the coaching classes.

The woman was sure that she was ready to start a family, that this was her firm and only desire, but then it turned out that there was another desire (stronger) not to start a relationship, because she had a paradigm that a serious relationship for her was like would be imprisonment, dependence on another person, loss of independence. Only when she realized the presence of this paradigm and changed it to a new one, she was able to start a new serious relationship.

Paradigms exist not only in humans, but also in animals, even in the smallest organisms. Once I already wrote on my blog, and I would like to return to this story today, since it is directly related to paradigms.

“Once passing by elephants in the zoo, I suddenly stopped, surprised that such huge creatures as elephants were kept in the zoo tied with a thin rope to their front leg. No chains, no cage. It was obvious that the elephants could easily free themselves from the rope they were tied to, but for some reason, they don't.

I approached the trainer and asked him why such majestic and beautiful animals just stand there and make no attempt to free themselves. He replied: “When they were young and much smaller than now, we tied them with the same rope, and now that they are adults, the same rope is enough to hold them. Growing up, they believe that this rope will be able to hold them and they don't try to escape."

It was amazing. These animals could get rid of their 'shackles' at any moment, but because they believed they couldn't, they stood there forever, not trying to free themselves.”

Why didn't the elephants try to run away? Because they were sure they couldn't do it. Having failed once in childhood, an elephant, like a person too, may never again in his life try to do it again.

3. Where do paradigms come from??

Now look at this picture and describe in detail what you see.

Do you see a woman? What age do you think she is? How does she look? How is she dressed? Who do you think she is?

Most likely, you will describe the woman in the second picture as a person of about twenty-five - very attractive, elegantly dressed, the owner of a small nose and restrained manner. If you weren't married, you'd hit on her. Working in a fashion store, you would hire her as a fashion model.

But what if I tell you that you are wrong? What if I say that the person in the picture is an elderly woman of about sixty or seventy, with an extinct look, with a huge nose and, of course, is not suitable for any models. This is the woman you would probably like to help cross the road.

Who is right? Take a look at the picture again. Do you see the old woman now? If not, look again. See the big hooked nose? Handkerchief?

It is very important that you see it before you continue reading.

It is important to understand that two people, looking at the same thing, can see different things, and at the same time both be right. It's not about logic, it's about psychology. In what preceded a certain situation.

The events of childhood and the past shape in us such paradigms and attitudes to the world that often destroy our life and make it spiritually and emotionally poor. Many people fall into the trap of paradigms without even realizing it. They act unwisely, continue to harm themselves, and cannot break free and realize that they themselves are preventing the achievement of their desires and goals. These hidden mechanisms of paradigms completely keep a person's life under control. Sometimes, acting contrary to a harmful paradigm, a person begins to feel uncomfortable, since paradigms in most cases are supported by feelings.

We acquire paradigms from childhood. Since children cannot comprehend the adult world in its entirety, they interpret everything they hear and see into their own subconscious rules of life. These rules are the paradigms that children learn from their elders. But children see the world differently than adults, and therefore often learn information in a distorted form. And as they grow older, they often continue to act as if their false paradigms are true. And no matter what you tell them, these paradigms seem quite correct and reasonable to them.

The emergence of paradigms also depends on how often the initial event or trauma occurred and how much it affected the child. For example, if a father once told his son that his own business is only a problem, then this is unlikely to lead to a new paradigm. And if the father talks about it all the time (i.e. the frequency of the event is high) or the father had a business and he went bankrupt and problems began in the family (which caused trauma), then these events will cause a paradigm that can accompany the child in adulthood. life and negatively influence his future actions, and even if such a child is offered a super offer to open own business he is unlikely to accept it.

Many of our childhood paradigms are related to money. I want to give an example of another money paradigm.

Once upon a time there was a girl Natasha. She has been saving money since childhood and putting it in her piggy bank. Once, when her sister needed money, she broke Natasha's piggy bank and took her money.

A sad story, but a very innocent one, isn't it? But little Natasha learned a new paradigm: "You can't trust anyone with your money." Maybe later, in childhood, this paradigm helped Natasha once, but it ceased to be useful when she matured. Natasha has grown up and today she earns a lot of money. Let's say $150,000 a year. In order not to deny herself anything, 50,000 a year is enough for her, but she spends all the money she earns on herself. Much of what she acquires, she does not even use. Natasha could invest some of her earnings, but she doesn't because she is afraid that others will be able to take away these savings. This fear is unconscious to Natasha, and is generated by a paradigm from the subconscious, so she does not even have the opportunity to realize the negative aspects of her behavior and change it.

Thus, paradigms learned in childhood can have a strong influence on our actions, choices, behavior, even when we become adults. People usually have no idea about their paradigms and that their addictions are associated with these paradigms. And as I said, such attitudes learned in childhood are buried so deep in the subconscious that we don’t even know about their existence, even if they are the source of many of our troubles.

Paradigms are often passed down from generation to generation..

Imagine two friends receive a business proposal from their friend. If you look objectively, then this offer is so good that it is almost impossible to refuse it.

But let's go back to the childhood of both friends.

One of the friends was brought up in a family where parents had their own business, and although sometimes there were even falls and problems, in general, the child saw that business is money, it is interesting things, success, it is interesting communication with people. IN childhood in relation to business, he developed a paradigm: “ Business - opportunities, success”.

The second friend grew up in a family where the father not only never had his own business, but also the father talked a lot about his father (the boy's grandfather) who had several businesses, and they all fell apart and he was left in debt at the end of his life. A little boy inherited a paradigm from his father from childhood that “ Business is problems, failures”

So, both of them received a lucrative business proposal from their friend. What do you think the reaction of each of them will be? Most likely, those who have a paradigm that "Business - opportunities, success" will gladly accept this offer, as they will see this as another opportunity to succeed, earn money, learn something new. The second friend will look at this proposal in a completely different way, because he has a different paradigm “Business is problems, failures”. Most likely, he will refuse the offer, since he already has “solid” evidence (grandfather and father) that business cannot lead to anything good. But even if he accepts the business proposal, there is a high probability that his business will “fail” or he will go out of business, since here, right from the very beginning of the business, a “self-fulfilling prophecy” will begin to operate.

Question: Can you become aware of your paradigms that negatively affect your life? Maybe you've thought about this before? You can start by analyzing areas of your life. Where would you like to make a change? In your career, personal relationships, how do you spend your holidays, what are your favorite activities? If in some areas you cannot achieve some desired goals for a long time, then there is a high probability that some paradigm or even several paradigms that most likely came from childhood are hindering you. It would not be superfluous to look at your parents, how they developed these areas in life. I have already said that being aware of your own destructive paradigms is the first step towards changing them and improving your life.

4. Why it's sometimes hard to change your paradigms?

Paradigms, like a broken clock that shows the correct time twice a day, can also be useful in some situations. For example, you have a “trust no one” paradigm. And if one day a scammer meets you on the street and offers you a get-rich-quick scheme, then your “trust no one” paradigm in this case will help you avoid a serious mistake and save you from possible problems. But if you use this paradigm in relationships in the family, at work, with friends, then you will not avoid problems. You will be like an actor who plays the same role over and over, ignoring the genre of the play - be it comedy, drama or adventure. Therefore, the role must be chosen according to the situation.

I want to give another example. Alexei believed that being in debt was like being in prison. His paradigm “debt is a restriction of freedom” was so firmly planted in his mind that he was never able to buy an apartment for his family, because he could not save enough money to buy an apartment, and a mortgage loan is “a prison, a restriction of freedom.” Even when he found himself in a situation where he paid more rent than the monthly installment on a mortgage loan, he could not understand the harm from his paradigm, and chose the lease option, justifying himself by saying that in this case he “would not go to jail and would be free.” ".

Denial is the strongest hindrance that prevents us from changing our destructive paradigms. Denial manifests itself in the unwillingness to realize that the paradigms that have arisen in early childhood continue to seriously affect the quality of life of an adult. Even when life demonstrates good reasons and the whole need for change, a person does not take any steps to change. Paradigms are often reinforced by our feelings. These strong subconscious emotions seem to bind a person to incorrect beliefs even when logic dictates that changes are inevitable. Personally, I believe that life very often gives us signs that we should pay attention to, but acting unconsciously, automatically, we somehow do not notice these signs and continue to move along the line of life, which does not lead us to happiness at all. To realize these signs, for example, helps me a daily record of what happened to me today. Suddenly, some interesting moments of the day come up that I did not attach much importance to, and in the evening, writing down, I look at these situations in a completely different way. Blogging also helps a lot to understand many paradigms. Thanks to my blog, or rather to its readers, I became aware of many destructive paradigms that I had not noticed before. (for example, I realized that you don’t need to be perfect, but you just need to be yourself).

Paradigms are very tricky (if I may say so). If we have a certain paradigm and we see in the world that contradicts this, then we find explanations for why this is not correct, does not correspond to reality, and so on, but if we see something that corresponds to our paradigm, then we immediately accept this information, thereby reinforcing our paradigm.

5. Summing up

Our paradigms often prevent us from opening our eyes and starting to live a full life.

One of the most exciting, but also very difficult, tasks is the need to understand what am I really? What am I striving for? What really makes my life good? Unraveling what really brings you joy is not an easy task, but once you realize it, you will begin to accept better for you, decisions, and make changes that will change your life and make it happy.

At the very beginning, I said that often people want to achieve something, but for years they do not succeed. But the question is not can I get what I want, but WHAT do I want? Many people strive for false goals. Create inner clarity, which is very often closed from a person by paradigms, this is the main task, after solving which a person can achieve everything that he really wants. Of course, taking into account the reality of the desired :)

I wish you to know your paradigms and change destructive paradigms to those that will help you make the right decisions for you and move towards real goals.

P.S. I want to add that if any of you decide that he wants to realize his paradigms and change those that hinder him, but feels that he needs help from outside, then write to me on my email ( [email protected]) a letter describing the area where you feel dissatisfied and I will try to help you with the coaching techniques, thanks to which I changed my destructive paradigms.

The problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in the development of the individual, that is, the problem of the factors (driving forces) of the development and formation of the individual, is the most important problem of pedagogical science, both domestic and foreign. Historically, there have been two main approaches to the interpretation of these factors.

1) Idealistic-preformist (Latin prae forma preformism created in advance). The common thing that unites all its supporters (theologians, theological philosophers, biologizers, neo-Atamists, neo-positivists, etc.) is the idea that human development? this process is spontaneous, uncontrollable, due to some internal "innate program" of personal and individual formation.

1a) Theological concept. The source of personal development is divine power.

1b) Biologization direction. The "program" of personal development has a biological basis and is directly related to the hereditary genotype of each person.

2) Materialistic. Proponents of this concept, without rejecting for the most part the influence of hereditary factors (biosociologists), take into account the influence of external, social factors - environment and upbringing to a greater extent.

2a) Sociological concept. Complete denial of heredity, environment and upbringing are the determining factors of development

2b) Biosociologization concept - its basis is the idea that a person is a biological and social being, therefore he develops and forms as a person under the influence of a whole set of factors, which include the environment, upbringing, heredity and the person's own vigorous activity (polyfactor theory) .

15. The most important factors in the development and self-development of the individual

Domestic scientific pedagogy is based on a multifactorial theory, according to which a person develops and forms as a person under the influence of the following factors:

I. heredity (biological factor)

III. upbringing (social factors)

IV. human activity

I. Heredity - a set of natural properties of an organism, passing from generation to generation, reproduction in descendants of biological similarity with parents.

Heredity - the properties of an organism to repeat similar types of metabolism and individual development in a number of generations

The role of heredity in the social (personal) formation of a person is manifested in the following aspects:

1) By inheritance in accordance with their biological nature (belonging to genus homo sapiens) a person has the ability for social development - walking upright, mastering speech, developing thinking, self-awareness, creativity, work, etc. No other representative of the living world has this ability.

2) The carriers of heredity are genes, from parents to children as a result of the implementation of their genetic program, which reflects a particular combination of parental genes, the following are transmitted: physique, constitution, hair color, eyes, skin type, etc. At the same time, genetic scientists have proved that the social traits and qualities acquired by parents in the process of life are not fixed in the genetic apparatus, and, accordingly, cannot be transmitted.

3) Hereditary include features of the human nervous system, which determine the nature, flow of mental processes; defects, shortcomings in the nervous activity of parents, including pathological ones that cause mental disorders, diseases (schizophrenia) can be inherited and affect the processes of individual and spiritual formation of children. Blood diseases, diabetes mellitus, endocrine disorders (dwarfism, obesity), etc. also have a hereditary character. Alcoholism, drug addiction, sound loads (hard rock, noise), carcinogens, harmful living and working conditions have a negative effect on offspring. These fleeting influences on the apparatus of heredity lead to the destruction of genetic codes, to irreversible mental mutations, which are reflected in the personality formation of children.

4) The pedagogical aspect of the hereditary nature of a person in the process of his personal development is also expressed in the fact that predispositions to this or that activity are inherited by children. These natural inclinations (good hearing, vocal abilities, phenomenal memory, the ability for poetic creativity) are a potential condition for the formation of abilities.

5) Biologically, a person has unlimited opportunities for development, but uses his personal potential only by 10-15%.

6) The biological in the development of a person can manifest itself in the most unexpected way (the psychology of a beauty and an ugly woman) stimulating or hindering a person's personal growth.

In general, it should be noted that a person's heredity acts as a potential prerequisite for his subsequent (successful or unsuccessful) social development.

II. The environment is the natural, socio-economic and material conditions of life of the human community and each person.

Part of the environment are:

Geographic environment? a certain territorial landscape, climate, flora and fauna, natural conditions, environmental conditions;

Social environment? the social material and spiritual conditions surrounding a person for his existence, formation and activity.

Allocate a social environment:

Far (media): social relations and institutions, etc., which in their totality form the type of personality of a certain country and a certain era.

Near: the socio-cultural conditions of the region, the family, the immediate environment forms personal qualities, values ​​and orientations, motives and interests.

Microenvironment (apartment, magnetic influences, microwaves) ? affect the development of nerve tissues, the brain.

The holistic influence of the environment is expressed in the fact that:

1) the environment is the source and main condition for the socialization of a growing personality (introducing the child to the norms and requirements of social life).

2) the environment does not fundamentally affect the development of the individual, since it is a rather passive factor (for example, 2 different children in the same family), since the influence of the environment is determined by the attitude of a person, depends on his needs, interests, age and individual characteristics.

3) the environment is a spontaneous, unintentional factor in the formation of a personality, since it can have both a positive and a negative impact on it

III) Education is considered to be the determining factor in the formation of personality, because. it corrects and directs the influence of all other factors and is the main means of ensuring the full-fledged personal development and formation of a person.

Upbringing:

1) uses positive environmental influences and accordingly organizes the life of the child (creation of an educational environment)

2) neutralizes and transforms negative environmental influences

3) reveals the inclinations and inclinations of a growing personality and ensures their development in accordance with the individual characteristics of a person.

4) affects the natural qualities of the individual, introducing new content into them, adapting them to specific conditions of life (filling in the gaps in the program of human development).

Bottom line: the strength (effectiveness) of educational influence lies in the purposeful, systematic and qualified management of the development of a growing personality.

The weakness of education lies in the fact that it is based on the consciousness of a person and requires his active participation in his own development and formation.

IV) The influence on the development of heredity, environment and upbringing is supplemented by another important factor? activity of the individual.

Pedagogical practice and scientific research show that from the point of view of the influence of heredity, environment and upbringing on a child, it is impossible to explain why, under the same conditions of upbringing, training and development, children with the same heredity (2-3 children in a family) grow up different. Or why children who grew up in worse conditions and obviously do not stand out for their natural inclinations often achieve greater success in life than those who had better everyday and natural starting opportunities.

In pedagogy, KD Ushinsky was the first to answer these questions. He expressed the opinion that a person himself takes part in the formation of his character, his personality; participating in various types of activity (mental, labor, social, technical and creative, etc.) a person transforms the surrounding reality and himself. For pedagogical practice, this provision is extremely important: if a teacher wants to teach or educate a child, he must involve him in the appropriate educational, labor, artistic and aesthetic, etc. activities. Activities can be active or passive. From time immemorial, the saying has come down to us: “How much sweat? so much success." This means that it is not so much the activity in itself that is important, but rather one's own tension (mental or physical), one's own efforts, one's own activity of the person manifested in this activity. Consequently, the child (student, pupil) in the educational process is not so much the object of the teacher's influences and efforts, but the subject? an active participant in their own development, formation, i.e. own upbringing. Understanding this led pedagogical science to the need to answer the question: when does a child become the subject of education and what is necessary for the formation of the subjectivity (activity) of a growing personality. Scientists have found that the activity of the individual is selective. It follows from this that personality development occurs under the influence of not any, not any influences, but those that find a positive response in the inner emotional sphere of the child (feelings, experiences), express his own needs and stimulate him to actively work on himself, those. stimulates him to self-development, self-improvement and self-education. This phenomenon in pedagogy is usually called the personification of education (Greek "persona" - personality, "face" - to do). It follows from this that the process of personality development is essentially a process of self-development, and all attention (educational and environmental influences)? it is only a means, a mechanism for launching this activity.