Konec pedagogiky : kritický esej

Název: Konec pedagogiky : kritický esej
Variantní název:
  • The end of educational sciences : a critical essay
Zdrojový dokument: Studia paedagogica. 2013, roč. 18, č. 2-3, s. [55]-72
Rozsah
[55]-72
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
 

Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.

Abstrakt(y)
Kritický esej popisuje tři současné diskurzy, které natolik ohrožují základní principy pedagogických věd, že lze s nadsázkou hovořit o konci pedagogiky. Koncem pedagogiky je myšleno nahrazení pedagogických konstant jinými prvky. Diskurz je pojímán jako určitý z působ vnímání skutečnosti v daném oboru a dané době, což se v prvé řadě projevuje v jazyce a ve druhé řadě v rámování debaty uvnitř daného oboru. Postupně analyzujeme tři diskurzy (diskurz evidence, praktického výzkumu a technologický diskurz) a detailně popisujeme jednotlivé koncepty a myšlenky, ze kterých jsou dané diskurzy vystavěny. V závěru shrnujeme vliv popsaných diskurzů a ukazujeme, jak mohou nahradit některé pedagogické koncepty, pokud nedojde ke konsolidaci oboru.
This critical essay describes three contemporary discourses which threaten the essential principles of educational sciences to such a degree that it is possible to start talking about the end of educational sciences, albeit with a hint of exaggeration. The end of educational sciences is understood to herald a change in educational constants and their replacement with different elements. We understand discourse as a way of perception in a given field at a given time which is mirrored both in language and in the framing of debates in the field. We progressively analyse three discourses (evidence-based discourse, discourse of practical research and technological discourse) and describe in detail the individual concepts and thoughts from which the discourses stem. The essay concludes with a summary of influences of the described discourses and also with showing how the discourses can replace some educational concepts, if the field is not consolidated.
Reference
[1] A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind. (2004). Washington: U. S. Department of Education.

[2] Andrews, R., Robinson, A., & Torgerson, C. (2004). Introduction. In R. Andrews (Ed.), The Impact of ICT on Literacy Education (s. 1–33). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

[3] Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning Economic Journal, 112(482), 735–765. | DOI 10.1111/1468-0297.00068

[4] Ball, S. J. (1993). Education policy, power relations and teachers' work British Journal of Educational Studies, 41(2), 106–121. | DOI 10.1080/00071005.1993.9973954

[5] Bassey, M. (2001). A Solution to the Problem of Generalisation in Educational Research: fuzzy prediction Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 5–22. | DOI 10.1080/03054980123773

[6] Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20. | DOI 10.3102/0013189X031008018

[7] Biesta, G. (2007). Why "What Works" Won't Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. | DOI 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x

[8] Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (1998). Stories to Live by: Narrative Understanding of School Reform Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149–164. | DOI 10.1111/0362-6784.00082

[9] Clayton, T. (1998). Beyond Mystification: Reconnecting World-System Theory for Comparative Education Comparative Education Review, 42(4), 479–496. | DOI 10.1086/447524

[10] Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

[11] Davies, P. (1999). What is Evidence-Based Education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108–121. | DOI 10.1111/1467-8527.00106

[12] Dvořák, D. (2005). Na "důkazech" založená praxe. Učitelské listy, 13(1), 8.

[13] Edmonds, R. (1981). The Last Obstacle to Equity in Education: Social Class Theory into Practice, 20(4), 269–272. | DOI 10.1080/00405848109542967

[14] Elliott, J. (1978). What is action research? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(4), 355–357. | DOI 10.1080/0022027780100407

[15] Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

[16] Foucault, M. (2002). Archeologie vědění. Praha: Herrmann a synové.

[17] Frideres, J. (1992). Participatory Research: An Illusionary Perspective. In J. Frideres (Ed.), A world of communities: Participatory research perspectives (s. 7–13). North York: Captus University Publications.

[18] Fuchs, T., & Wossmann, L. (2004). Computers and student learning: bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. Brussels Economic Review, 47(3/4), 359–386.

[19] Gage, N. L. (1978). The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

[20] Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications.

[21] Goktas, Y., Hasancebi, F., Varisoglu, B., Akcay, A., Bayrak, N., Baran, M., & Sozbilir, M. (2012). Trends in Educational Research in Turkey: A Content Analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 455–459.

[22] Greenwood, D. J. (2002). Action research: Unfulfilled promises and unmet challenges Concepts and Transformation, 7(2), 117–140. | DOI 10.1075/cat.7.2.02gre

[23] Gustavsen, B. (2003a). Action research and the problem of the single case Concepts and Transformation, 8(1), 93–99. | DOI 10.1075/cat.8.1.07gus

[24] Gustavsen, B. (2003b). New forms of knowledge production and the role of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 152–164.

[25] Hacking, I. (1988). Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design Isis, A Special Issue on Artifact and Experiment, 79(3), 427–451. | DOI 10.1086/354775

[26] Hammersley, M. (2001). On ‘Systematic’ Reviews of Research Literatures: A ‘Narrative’ Response to Evans and Benefield British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 543–554. | DOI 10.1080/01411920120095726

[27] Hargreaves, D. (1997). In Defence of Evidence-Based Teaching British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 405–419. | DOI 10.1080/0141192970230402

[28] Hayes, E. R., & Games, I. A. (2008). Making Computer Games and Design Thinking. A Review of Current Software and Strategies Games and Culture, 3(3/4), 309–322. | DOI 10.1177/1555412008317312

[29] Heidegger, M. (1955). The question concerning technology. In J. Gray (Ed.), Martin Heidegger: Basic writings (s. 287–317). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

[30] Horvath, A. (1991). The Practice of Theory. In B. Spiecker & R. Straughan (Eds.), Freedom and Indoctrination in Education: international perspectives (s. 51–57). London: Cassell.

[31] House, E. R., Glass, G. V., McLean, L. D., & Walker, D. F. (1978). No Simple Answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation Harvard Educational Review, 48(2), 128–160. | DOI 10.17763/haer.48.2.j2167r4594027x87

[32] Hsu, Y. C., Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, N. S. (2012). Research Trends in Technology-based Learning from 2000 to 2009: A content Analysis of Publications in Selected Journals. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 354–370.

[33] Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Gender Differences in Children's Constructions of Video Games. In P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting with Video (s. 39–66). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

[34] Kaščák, O., & Pupala, B. (2012). Škola zlatých golierov. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.

[35] Levin, M. (2003). Action research and the research community Concepts and Transformation, 8(3), 275–280. | DOI 10.1075/cat.8.3.08lev

[36] Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper and Brothers.

[37] Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[38] Mareš, J. (2009). Edukace založená na důkazech: inspirace pro pedagogický výzkum i školní praxi. Pedagogika, 59(3), 232–258.

[39] Nixon, J. (1987). The Teacher as Researcher: Contradictions and Continuities Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 20–32. | DOI 10.1080/01619568709538549

[40] Nowotny, H. (2000). The Production of Knowledge beyond the Academy and the Market: A Reply to Dominique Pestre Science Technology Society, 5(2), 183–194. | DOI 10.1177/097172180000500203

[41] OECD (2007). Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy. Knowledge Management. OECD Publishing.

[42] Petrusek, M. (2006). Společnosti pozdní doby. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.

[43] Popper, K. R. (1997). Logika vědeckého bádání. Praha: OIKOYMENH.

[44] Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

[45] Pring, R. (2001). Education as a Moral Practice Journal of Moral Education, 30(2), 101–112. | DOI 10.1080/03057240120061360

[46] Robinson, V. M. (1993). Current Controversies in Action Research. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(3), 263–290.

[47] Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

[48] Starý, K., Dvořák, D., Greger, D., & Duschinská, K. (2012). Profesní rozvoj učitelů: Podpora učitelů pro zlepšování výsledků žáků. Praha: Karolinum.

[49] Stenhouse, L. (1981). What Counts as Research? British Journal of Educational Studies, 29(2), 103–114. | DOI 10.1080/00071005.1981.9973589

[50] Švaříček, R., & Zounek, J. (2008). E-learning ve vysokoškolské výuce pohledem empirického výzkumu. SPFFBU U 13, 13(1), 101–126.

[51] Tech Tonic: Towards a New Literacy of Technology. (2004). A Critique of Current Technology Education Standards. Dostupné z: http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/pdf/projects/computers/pdf_files/tech_tonic.pdf

[52] Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a Living Educational Theory from Questions of the Kind, "How Do I Improve My Practice?" Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41–52. | DOI 10.1080/0305764890190106

[53] Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2004). Ontological, epistemological and methodological commitments in practitioner-research. Paper presented at the BERA 2004.

[54] Wulf, Ch. (2003). Educational Science. Mnichov, Berlin: Waxmann.