The Problem of Implicit "Substitution" of Grounds and Deferred Evidence in the System of Pedagogic Knowlege
https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7219-2021-3-6-18
Abstract
Aim. To present the problem of implicit «substitution» of grounds and deferred evidence, showing on specific examples their manifestation and impact on education.
Methodology. In the article, using specific examples, the problem of choosing the grounds for evidencebased argumentation of pedagogical research is considered, the source of which is the coexistence of three versions of scientific character at the current stage of science development: classical, nonclassical and post-non-classical. In the process of scientific research, the theoretical research methods have been used such as comparative analysis, generalization, interpretation, scientific theorization in the context of the ideas of post-non-classical science and on its methodological basis.
Results. The article presents the classical and post-nonclassical versions of the ontology of education. It is stated that for the modern pedagogical research, the presence of an ontological conflict between the ontological basis of setting research tasks and the ontological basis of methods for understanding and solving them is typical, the conflict takes the form of an implicit «substitution» of the ontological foundations of research. Its indicator is the structural identity of the educational innovations and the traditional education system, which is concretized by the examples in the article. The «substitution» of the ontological foundations of research entails the paradox of the evidencebased argumentation. The problem under consideration forms a barrier to the development of education, acting as a deep factor in the stagnation of its crisis state, which determines the strategic significance of its solution.
Research implications. The research results contribute to the development of the theoretical foundations of post-non-classical education.
About the Author
I. A. LeskovaRussian Federation
Inna A. Leskova – Dr. Sci. (Pedagogy), Assoc. Prof.
27 prospekt im. V. I. Lenina, Volgograd, 27400066
References
1. Andreev A. L. [Technoscience]. In:Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki [Philosophy of Science and Technology], 2011, no. 16, pp. 200–218.
2. Vasari G. Le Vite de'piu eccelenti Pittori, Scultori e Architetti (Rus. ed.: Dzhivelegov A., ed. Zhizneopisaniya naibolee znamenity`x zhivopiscev vayatelej i zodchix. Rostov on Don, Feniks Publ., 544 p.
3. Gershunsky B. S. Filosofiya obrazovaniya dlya XXI veka (v poiskah praktiko-orientirovannyh obrazovatel’nyh koncepcij) [Philosophy of education for the XXI century (in search of practiceoriented educational concepts)]. Moscow, InterDialekt+ Publ., 1997. 697 p.
4. Kovalyova T. M. [Open educational space as an institutional form]. In: Mezhregional’naya t’yutorskay aassociaciya [Interregional tutor association]. Available at: https://thetutor.ru (accessed: 10.03.2021).
5. Knyazeva E. N. Enaktivizm: novaya forma konstruktivizma v epistemologii [Enactivism: a new form of constructivism in epistemology]. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2014, 352 p.
6. Leskova I. A. Sub’ektocentrirovannyj podhod k postroeniyu soderzhaniya vysshego obrazovaniya: dis. … d-ra ped. nauk [Subject-centered approach to the construction of the content of higher education: Dr. Sci. thesis in Pedagogical sciences]. Moscow, 2019. 437 p.
7. Nalimov V. V. [Demand for changing the image of science]. In: Problema znaniya v istorii nauki i kul’tury [The problem of knowledge in the history of science and culture]. St. Petersburg, Aletejya Publ., 2001. P. 6–27.
8. Novichkov V. B. Teoretiko-metodologicheskie osnovy konstruirovaniya soderzhaniya obshcheg osrednego obrazovaniya: avtoref. dis. ... d-ra ped. nauk [Theoretical and methodological foundations for constructing the content of general secondary education: Dr. Sci. thesis in Pedagogical sciences]. Moscow, 2012. 31 p.
9. Heidegger M. Der satzvomgrund (Rus. ed.: Koval O. A., transl. Polozhenie ob osnovanii: statiyi fragmenty. St. Petersburg, Aleteya Publ., 2000. 290 p.).