|
PEDAGOGICAL EDUCATION AND SELF-DETERMINATION: REDEFINITION OF BOUNDARIES
DOI: 10.23951/2782-2575-2022-2-15-41
The initial thesis of this article is to consider the contemporary cultural situation as hyperdynamic, transterritorial, and formed by a multiplicity of mutually disproportionate worlds specifying a person’s position in them, together with the totality of their inherent meanings, visions, relations, behavioral patterns and possibilities of self-determination. Such a situational definition is a challenge to established educational practice, prompting it to dynamize and diversify the connections and relationships at work within it and to reorganize the forms of educational semiosis and the sign-symbolic mediators that support them, including texts specifically designed to orient students. After a critical evaluation of mapping as a constructive basis for the formation of students’ orientation competence (leading to a discursive unification and homogenization of educational practices), the authors attempt to develop an instrument of orientation mediation that highlights the multidimensionality of pedagogical positions and is subject to several key requirements. These are as follows: Orientation to the qualitative differences in educational relations in the processes of pedagogical self-organization; abandonment of the position of an absolute subject with the ability to perceive the educational environment panoptically; the incorporation of the student’s self-organization techniques that allow him/her to build moving and transforming coordinate systems and actions relevant to them in the orientation process. The semiotic construction of the mediator, designed by the authors to ensure the variability of the configurations of educational reality, aims analytically, above all, to explain and differentiate the political images of the production of educational subjects in the minds of students. Therefore, each of these policies is considered a discursive construction aimed at establishing and reproducing a model of a certain anthropological type in the educational environment. This means that this environment is an area of symbolic struggle of different pedagogical forms, which necessarily involve the consciousness and self-consciousness of their bearers in their structure. Thus, their self-reference or self-referentiality becomes the basic condition for constructing and reorganizing orientation systems. The form of mediation support for students’ orientation proposed by the authors uses the fundamental distinction between humanistic (pedagogical, anti-pedagogical) and posthumanistic policies of the genealogy of educational subjects, emphasizing their ontological specificity and epistemological incommensurability. The design of the text is based on posthumanist (postmodernist) concepts in search of a positive educational project that “creates new possibilities for development” rather than on critical engagement with the dominant discourses in education. The authors’ textual experiment raises a number of new research and practice questions, including those of textual exposition of ontologically heterogeneous forms of education, overcoming the effects of sign-symbolic reification of educational statements due to educational reproduction, clarifying the self-referential psychological and pedagogical conditions of the pedagogical self-determination subject.
Ключевые слова: educational semiosis, self-referentiality, plurality, counter-text
Библиография:
1. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2018). Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition (4th ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. (Russ. ed.: Freire, Paulo. Pedagogika ugnetennyh [Pedagogy of the Oppressed]. Moscow: KoLibri, Azbuka-Attikus, 2018). (In Russian).
2. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity (1st ed.). Polity. (Russ. ed.: Bauman, Z. Tekuchaya sovremennost’ [Liquid Modernity]. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ., 2008). (In Russian).
3. Jameson, F. (1992). Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Post-Contemporary Interventions). Duke University Press. (Russ. ed.: Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernizm, ili Kul’turnaya logika pozdnego kapitalizma [Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism]. Moscow: House of the Gaidar Institute Publ., 2019). (In Russian).
4. Guseva, E. A., Panfilova, M. I. (2019). K diskussii o vuzovskoj filosofii: chto, kak, zachem [To the Discussion on Academic Philosophy: What, How, and What for]. Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-2-69-78. (In Russian).
5. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk (Conduct and Communication). University of Pennsylvania Press.
6. Derrida, J., & Spivak, G. C. (1998). Of Grammatology (Corrected ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. (Derrida, J. O grammatologii [Of Grammatology]. Moscow: Ad Marginem, 2000). (In Russian).
7. Klus-Stanska, D. (2018). Paradygmaty dydaktyki. Myslec teoria o praktyce [Didactic paradigms. Think theory about practice]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. (In Polish).
8. Bakhtin, M. M. (2000). Avtor i geroj: K filosofskim osnovam gumanitarnyh nauk [Author and Hero: Toward the Philosophical Foundations of the Humanities]. Azbuka. (In Russian).
9. Barthes, R. (1994). Izbrannye raboty. Semiotika. Poetika [Selected works. Semiotics. Poetics] (Russ. ed.). Progress; Univers. (In Russian).
10. Torbert, B., Cook-Groot, S., Fisher, D., Fuld, E., & Goldier Et Al, A. (2018). ACTION INQUIRY The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership (Chinese Edition) (1st ed.). Publishing House of Electronics Industry. (Russ. ed.: Torbert, Bill. Issledovanie dejstviem [Action Inquiry]. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2019). (In Russian).
11. Lacan, J. (1966). L’instance de la lettre dans l’inconscient ou la raison depuis Freud. Écrits. (Russ. ed.: Lacan, J. Instanciya bukvy, ili sud’ba razuma posle Frejda [The instance of the letter, or the fate of the mind after Freud]. Moscow: Logos, 1997). (In Russian)
12. White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (1st ed.). The Johns Hopkins University Press. (Russ. ed.: White, Hayden. Metaistoriya: istoricheskoe voobrazhenie v Evrope XIX v. [Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe]. Yekaterinburg: UralGU Publ., 2002). (In Russian).
13. Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.-C. (1970). Reproduction: éléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement (ed. 1re) [Reproduction: elements for a theory of the education system]. MINUIT. (Russ. ed.: Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.-C. Vosproizvodstvo: elementy teorii sistemy obrazovaniya [Reproduction: elements for a theory of the education system]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 2007) (In Russian).
14. MacIntyre, A. C. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory (F First American Edition). University of Notre Dame Press. (Russ. ed.: MacIntyre, Alasdair C. Posle dobrodeteli: Issledovaniya teorii morali [After virtue: A study in moral theory]. Moscow: Akademicheskij Proekt; Yekaterinburg: Delovaya kniga, 2000). (In Russian).
15. Polonnikov, A. A. (2002, October). Obrazovanie i identichnost’ [Education and identity]. Vuzovskaya nauka, promyshlennost’, mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo [University science, industry, international cooperation], 137–142. (In Russian).
16. Lyotard, J. (1993). Le postmoderne expliqué aux enfants. Correspondance, 1982–1985 [The postmodern explained to children. Correspondence, 1982–1985]. Le Livre de Poche. (Russ. ed.: Lyotard, Jean-François. Postmodern v izlozhenii dlya detej: Pis’ma: 1982–1985 [The postmodern explained to children. Correspondence: 1982–1985]. Moscow: RSHU Publ., 2008). (In Russian).
17. Lamarre, J. M. (2007). La croyance en l’école à l’épreuve de la post-modernité: peut-on apprendre sans faire crédit au maître et à la culture enseignée ? [Belief in school put to the test by post-modernity: can we learn without giving credit to the teacher and the culture taught?]. Recherches En Éducation, 2. https://doi.org/10.4000/ree.3713
18. Ankersmit, F. R. (1983). Narrative Logic: A Semantic Analysis of the Historian’s Language. Springer. (Russ. ed.: Ankersmit, Franklin R. Narrativnaya logika. Semanticheskij analiz yazyka istorikov [Narrative Logic: A Semantic Analysis of the Historian’s Language]. Moscow: Ideya Press, 2003). (In Russian).
19. Goffman, E. (1981) Lecture. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, 160–196 (Russ. ed.: Goffman, E. Lekciya [Lecture]. Akademicheskaya lekciya: prepodavanie i issledovanie [Academic Lecture: Teaching and Research]. T. V. Tyagunova, A. A. Polonnikov (eds.). Belarusian State University, Minsk, 222–253). (In Russian).
20. Campbell, C. (2018). Educating Semiosis: Foundational Concepts for an Ecological Edusemiotic. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(3), 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9617-4
21. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor. (Russ. ed.: Berger, Peter L., Luckmann, Thomas. Social’noe konstruirovanie real’nosti. Traktat po sociologii znaniya [The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge]. Moscow: Academia-Center; MEDIUM, 1995). (In Russian).
22. Gurko, E. (2001). Dekonstrukciya: teksty i interpretaciya. Derrida J. Ostav’ eto imya (Postskriptum). Kak izbezhat’ razgovora: denegacii [Deconstruction: texts and interpretation. Derrida J. Leave this name (Postscript). How to avoid the conversation: denegations]. Ekonompress. (In Russian).
23. Ratajczak, M. (2018). Podmiot jako efekt języka [Subject as an effect of language]. Archiwum Historii Filozofii i Myśli Społecznej [Archive of the History of Philosophy and Social Thought], 63, 35–62.
24. Lyodtard, J. (1979). La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport Sur Le Savoir [The Postmodern Condition: Knowledge Report] (Critique ed.). MINUIT. (Russ. ed.: Lyotard, Jean-François. Sostoyanie postmoderna [The Postmodern Condition]. Moscow: Aletejya; St. Petersburg: Institut sociologicheskih issledovanij Publ., 1998). (In Russian).
25. Céspedes, E. (2018). Incommensurability, types of phenomena and relevant incompatibility (part I). Cinta de Moebio, 63, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2018000300323
26. Lamarre, J. M. (2006). Seule l’altérité enseigne [Only otherness teaches]. Le Télémaque, 29(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.3917/tele.029.0069
27. Shchedrovickij, P. G. (1989). Problemy nepreryvnogo obrazovaniya i pedagogicheskaya antropologiya [Problems of continuing education and pedagogical anthropology]. Kharkov State University, Kharkov. (In Russian).
28. Bozhovich, L. I. (1968). Lichnost’ i ee formirovanie v detskom vozraste: psihologicheskoe issledovanie [Personality and its formation in childhood: a psychological study]. Prosveshchenie. (In Russian).
29. 42. (n.d.). Bloom B. S. https://docplayer.nl/9414943-Benjamin-samuel-bloom-taxonomie.html
30. Ancyferova, L. I. (1978). Metodologicheskie problemy psihologii razvitiya [Methodological problems of developmental psychology]. Princip razvitiya v psihologii [The principle of development in psychology]. Nauka, 3–20. (In Russian).
31. Brushlinskij, A. V. (1978). Problema razvitiya i psihologiya myshleniya [The problem of development and the psychology of thinking]. Princip razvitiya v psihologii [The principle of development in psychology]. Nauka, 38–62. (In Russian).
32. Slobodchikov, V. I., Isaev, E. I. (1995). Osnovy psihologicheskoj antropologii. Psihologiya cheloveka: Vvedenie v psihologiyu sub”ektivnosti: uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov [Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Human psychology: Introduction to the psychology of subjectivity: a textbook for universities]. Shkola-Press. (In Russian).
33. Rancière, J. (2014). Le Maître ignorant: Cinq leçons sur l’émancipation intellectuelle [The Ignorant Schoolmaster. Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation]. FAYARD.
34. Carpay, J., van Oers, B. (1999) Didactic models and the problem of intertextuality and polyphony. Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R-L. Punamäki (eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 298–313. (Russ. ed.: Carpay, Jacques, van Oers, Bert. Didakticheskie modeli i problema obuchayushchej diskussii [Didactic Models and the Problem of Teaching Discussion]. Voprosy psihologii [Questions of psychology]. 4 (1993): 21–27). (In Russian).
35. Sirotkin, D. (n.d.). Citaty Dalya. [Dahl quotes]. Sirotkin. Retrieved May 13, 2022, from https://burido.ru/863-tsitaty-dalya (In Russian).
36. Foucault, М. (2017, July 10). Michel Foucault: Omnes et singulatim: K kritike politicheskogo razuma [Omnes et singulatim: Toward a Criticism of Political Reason]. Foucault. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/7370 (In Russian).
37. Ogurcov, A. P., Platonov, V. V. (2004). Obrazy obrazovaniya. Zapadnaya filosofiya obrazovaniya. XX vek [Images of education. Western philosophy of education. XX century]. Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute, St. Petersburg. (In Russian).
38. Malahova, V. G., Bokova, T.N. (2020). Filosofskie idei postmodernizma i ih vliyanie na sistemu obrazovaniya v Rossii i SSHA [Philosophical ideas of postmodernism and their impact on the education system in Russia and the USA]. Obrazovanie i samorazvitie – Education and Self Development, vol. 15, 1, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd15.1.08 (In Russian).
39. Polonnikov, A. A. (1996). Otkrytie mira detstva (Utopiya J.-J. Rousseau) [Discovery of the World of Childhood (Utopia by J.-J. Rousseau)]. Adukacyya i vyhavanne – Education and Upbringing, 11, 112–118. (In Russian).
40. Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing Developmental Psychology (Critical Psychology) (1st ed.). Routledge. (Russ. ed.: Burman, Erica. Dekonstruktivnaya psihologiya razvitiya [Deconstructing Developmental Psychology]. Izhevsk: Udmurt University Press., ERGO, 2006). (In Russian).
41. Klus-Stańska, D. (2016). Odwrót od rozwoju: kontrowersyjna czy obiecująca zmiana paradygmatu wczesnej edukacji [A Retreat from Development: a Controversial or Promising Paradigm Shift in Early Childhood Education]. Studia Edukacyjne – Educational Studies]. 38, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.14746/se.2016.38.1
42. Dylak, S. (2020). Behawioryzm i konstruktywizm wobec człowieczych czynów, wiedzy i moralności ...ku (nie) podzielanej edukacji [Behaviourism and constructivism toward human acts, knowledge and morality …toward (not) shared education]. Problemy Wczesnej Edukacji – Early Education Problems, 51(4), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.26881/pwe.2020.51.05
43. Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). Émile ou De l’éducation (ed. 1re) [Emile, or On Education]. La Haye. (Russ. ed.: Rousseau, J.-J. Emil›, ili O vospitanii [Emile, or On Education]. Rousseau, J.-J., Komensky, J. A., Locke, J., Pestalozzi, J. H. Pedagogicheskoe nasledie [Pedagogical legacy]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1989, 199–296). (In Russian).
44. Vygotskij, L. S., Luriya, A. R. (1993). Etyudy po istorii povedeniya: Obez’yana. Primitiv. Rebenok [Etudes on the history of behavior: Monkey. Primitive. Child]. Pedagogika-Press. (In Russian)
45. Dylewski, M. (2018). Antypedagogika “nie wychowuj, tylko współdziałaj” [Anti-pedagogy “do not educate, only cooperate”]. Biblioteka internetowa “Akademii Wychowania” [Online library of “Akademia Wychowania”]. http://www.misjarodzinna.pl/new/1335373897.pdf
46. Sachkova, N.A. (2021). Teoreticheskie osnovaniya ponyatiya “inkul’turaciya”: konkretizaciya terminologicheskih granic [Theoretical foundations of the concept of “inculturation”: specification of terminological boundaries”]. Sovremennaya nauka: aktual’nye problemy teorii i praktiki [Modern Science: Actual Problems of Theory and Practice], 2, 32–35. https://doi.org/10.37882/2500-3682.2021.02.26 (In Russian).
47. Płaneta, F. (2019). Św. Augustyn a prezentyzm [St. Augustine and presentism]. Nauki ścisłe – Science, 18, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.26361/ZNTDSC.10.2019.18.03
48. H. von Schoenebeck – Antypedagogika. Nowy sposób wychowania dzieci? (2014, January 26). ramonaczajka. Retrieved July 9, 2019, from https://ramonaczajka.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/h-von-schoenebeck-antypedagogikanowy-sposob-wychowania-dzieci/
49. Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, J. H. (1994). Freedom to Learn (Subsequent ed.). Pearson College Div. (Russ. ed.: Rogers, Carl R., Freiberg, H. Jerome. Svoboda uchit’sya [Freedom to Learn]. Moscow: Smysl, 2002). (In Russian).
50. Piaget, J. (1979). La psychogenèse des connaissances et sa signification épistémologique. Théories du langage, théories de l’apprentissage [Psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance]. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 53–64. (Russ. ed.: Piaget, Jean. Psihogenez znanij i ego epistemologicheskoe znachenie [Psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance]. Semiotika [Semiotics]. Moscow: Raduga, 1983: 90–101). (In Russian).
51. Maslow, A. H., Maslow, B. G., & Geiger, H. (1993). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (1st ed.). Penguin / Arkana. (Russ. ed.: Maslow, Abraham H., Maslow, Bretha G., Geiger, Henry. Dal’nie predely chelovecheskoj psihiki [The Farther Reaches of the Human Psyche]. St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 1997). (In Russian).
52. Śliwerski, B. (2019). Pedagogika nedatywna [Pedagogy is non-dative]. Kwieciński, Z., Śliwerski, В. Podręcznik akademicki [Academic textbook]. PWN, 561–570. (In Polish)
53. Orlov, A. B. (2002). Psihologiya lichnosti i sushchnosti cheloveka: Paradigmy, proekcii, praktiki: Ucheb. posobie dlya studentov psihologicheskih fakul’tetov [Psychology of personality and human essence: Paradigms, projections, practices. Study guide for students of psychological faculties]. Akademiya. (In Russian).
54. Maslakov, S. V. (2015). Kritika postmodernizma kak global’nyj trend sovremennosti [Criticism of postmodernism as a global trend of modernity]. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya – Theory and practice of social development], 12, 380–382. (In Russian).
55. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1997). Impostures intellectuelles. The Modern Language Review, 1(94), 217–221. (Russ. ed.: Sokal, Alan. Bricmont, Jean. Intellektual’nye ulovki. Kritika filosofii postmoderna [Intellectual tricks. Criticism of postmodern philosophy]. Moscow: Dom intellektual’noj knigi, 2002). (In Russian).
56. Mozhejko, M. A. (2015). Ya i Drugoj: chto den’ gryadushchij mne gotovit. Vozmozhno li schast’e v ХХI v. [Me and the Other: what the coming day is preparing for me. Is happiness possible in the 21st century?]. Sociologiya – Sociology, 4, 87–96. (In Russian).
57. Mikhalina, O. (2011). Filosofiya obrazovaniya i postmodernizm [Philosophy of education and postmodernism]. Svіtoglyad. – Fіlosofіya. – Relіgіya [Worldview. – Philosophy. – Religion], issue 1, 58–68. (In Russian).
58. Omel’chenko, A. V. (2011). Postmodernizm i pedagogika [Postmodernism and pedagogy]. In: Tovazhnyans’kij, L. L., Romanovs’kij, O. G. (eds.). Problemi ta perspektivi formuvannya nacіonal’noї gumanіtarno-tekhnіchnoї elіti [Problems and prospects of formation of the national humanitarian and technical elite]. Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute, Kharkiv, vol. 28(32), 215–224. (In Russian).
59. Szkudlarek, T. (2009) Wiedza i wolność w pedagogice amerykańskiego postmodernizmu (II Wyd.) [Knowledge and freedom in the pedagogy of American postmodernism]. Impuls.
60. Dolin, V. A. (2013). Koncept “smert’ sub’’ekta” v sovremennoj filosofii [“Death of Subject” concept in contemporary philosophy]. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki – Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice, vol. 2, 4, 56–61. (In Russian).
61. Domańska, E. (2008). Humanistyka nie-antropocentryczna a studia nad rzeczami [Non-Anthropocentric Human Sciences and Thing Studies]. Kultura Wspołczesna – Contemporary Culture], 3, 9–21.
62. Kriman, A.I. (2019). Ideya postcheloveka: sravnitel’nyj analiz transgumanizma i postgumanizma [The Idea of the Posthuman: A Comparative Analysis of Transhumanism and Posthumanism]. Filosofskie nauki – Philosophical Sciences, vol. 62, 4, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-4-132-147 (In Russian).
63. Chutorański, M. (2017). W stronę nie-antropocentrycznej ontologii tego, co edukacyjne [Towards the nonanthropocentric ontology of the educational]. Teraźniejszość – Człowiek – Edukacja [Present – Man – Education], vol. 20, 4(80), 8–21.
64. Chutoranski, M. (2020). Nie(tylko)ludzkie wymiary edukacji. W strone pedagogiki nieantropocentrycznej [Not (only) the human dimensions of education. Towards non-anthropocentric pedagogy]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecinskiego.
65. Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (1994). Postmodernism and Education: Different Voices, Different Worlds (One World Archaeology; 25) (1st ed.). Routledge.
66. Bekus-Goncharova, N. E., Korol’, D. Yu. (2004). Polidiskursivnost’ i obrazovatel’noe sobytie [Polydiscursivity and educational event]. In: Gusakovskij, M. A. (ed.). Universitet kak centr kul’turoporozhdayushchego obrazovaniya. Izmenenie form kommunikacii v uchebnom processe [University as a center of culture-generating education. Changing the forms of communication in the learning process]. Belarusian State University, Minsk, 88–89 (In Russian).
67. Palonnikov, A. A., Korol, D. Y., & Korchalova, N. D. (2018). Izmenenie diskursivnoj politiki sub”ekta v universitetskom obrazovanii [Change in the discursive policy of the subject in university education]. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Filosofiya, Sotsiologiya, Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 42, 166–178. https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863x/42/18 (In Russian).
68. Klus-Stańska D., Połonnikow A. (2017). Zmiana polityki symbolicznej w pedagogicznym kształceniu uniwersyteckim: prolegomeny do programu badań nad edukacją ewentualną [The change of symbolic policy in the academic pedagogical education: introduction to the plan of research on “possible education”]. Studia Pedagogiczne. Problemy społeczne, edukacyjne i artystyczne – Pedagogical studies. Social, educational and artistic problems, LXX(70), 37–55 (In Polish)
69. Szkudlarek, T. (2012). Tożsamość [Identity]. In: Dyskursywna konstrukcja podmiotu: przyczynek do rekonstrukcji pedagogiki kultury [The discursive construction of the subject: a contribution to the reconstruction of cultural pedagogy]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk, 346–419. (In Polish)
70. Groenwald, M. (2009). Nieoczekiwany wynik egzaminu – dlaczego zaskoczył? [Unexpected result of the exam – why was it surprising?]. In: Hurło, L., Klus-Stańskiej, D., Łojko, M. (eds.). Paradygmaty współczesnej dydaktyki [The paradigms of contemporary didactics]. Impuls, 322–331.
71. Dirkx, J. M., Mezirow, J., & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and Reflections on the Meaning, Context, and Process of Transformative Learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344606287503
72. Drabata, A. (2018). Dekonstrukcja znaczeń nadawanych żądaniom przez nauczycieli pracujących z uczniami z niepełnosprawnością intelektualną [Deconstruction of meanings given to demands by teachers working with students with intellectual disabilities]. Niepełnosprawność [Disability], 30. https://doi.org/10.4467/25439561.np.18.032.9870
73. Wheeler, G. (2000). Beyond Individualism: Toward a New Understanding of Self, Relationship, & Experience. GICPress. (Russ. ed.: Wheeler, Gordon. Geshtal’tterapiya postmoderna: za predelami individualizma [Postmodern Gestalt Therapy: Beyond Individualism]. Moscow: Smysl; CheRo, 2005). (In Russian).
74. Łażewska, D. (2015). Derridiańska dekonstrukcja jako strategia odrzucania wartości prawdy w pedagogice [Derridian deconstruction as a strategy of rejecting the value of truth in pedagogy]. In: Furmanek, W., Długosz, A. (eds.). Wartości w pedagogice. Urzeczywistnianie wartości [Values in pedagogy. Realizing values]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów, 165–172.
75. Melosik, Z. T., Szkudlarek, T. (2009). Kultura, tożsamośći edukacja: migotanie znaczeń [Culture, identity, education: flickering of significations]. Impuls.
76. Jameson, F. (n.d.). Reprezentaciya globalizacii [Representation of globalization]. Https://Polit.Ru/. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://polit.ru/article/2010/04/05/jameson/ (In Russian).
77. Padilla-Petry, P., Hernández-Hernández, F., & Sánchez-Valero, J. A. (2021). Using Cartographies to Map Time and Space in Teacher Learning in and Outside School. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 160940692199290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921992906
78. Galperin, P. Ya. (2006). Metody obucheniya i umstvennogo razvitiya rebenka [Methods of teaching and mental development of the child]. In: Pedagogicheskaya psihologiya: hrestomatiya [Pedagogical psychology: a reader]. Piter, 39–44. (In Russian).
79. Dubrovina, I. V., Kruglov, V. S. (1988). Psihologo-pedagogicheskie predposylki povysheniya effektivnosti obucheniya shkol’nikov 12–17 let [Psychological and pedagogical prerequisites for improving the effectiveness of teaching schoolchildren aged 12–17 years]. In: Dubrovina, I. V., Kruglova, B. S. (ed.). Osobennosti obucheniya i psihicheskogo razvitiya shkol’nikov 13–17 let [Features of teaching and mental development of schoolchildren aged 13–17 years]. Moscow: Pedagogy, 293–303. (In Russian).
80. Szkudlarek, T. (2009). Media. Szkic z filozofii i pedagogiki dystansu [Media. Sketch on the philosophy and pedagogy of distance]. Impuls.
81. Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2004). Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective (1st ed.). Routledge.
( 790.17 kB ) 
( 767.12 kB )
Выпуск: 2, 2022
Серия выпуска: Issue 2
Рубрика:
Страницы: 15 — 41
Скачиваний: 389