Psychology of pedagogical activity, the place of pedagogical...

Psychology of pedagogical activity

The basic branch of pedagogical psychology is traditionally the psychology of pedagogical activity. Its main task is to study the psychological foundations of the activity of the teacher.

The psychology of pedagogical activity examines the individual-psychological and professional qualities of the teacher. This includes many problems related to the specificity of professional identity, the formation of the teacher's professionalism. The most intensively developed questions are the specifics of the formation of pedagogical abilities, professional identification, the manifestation of professional deformities arising in the teachers.

A special place in the research conducted within the psychology of pedagogical activity is devoted to studying the issues of the teacher's motivation. This problem is closely related to the task of becoming a teacher's professionalism, but not identical to it.

How adequately is the teacher able to assess the level of cognitive functions and the level of psychosocial development of his students? At first glance, this issue may seem illegal, because this task is traditionally assigned to practical psychologists working in education. Without removing it from practical psychologists, one can not help noticing that, trusting the teacher to play a leading role in the educational process, we do not have the moral right to refuse him in assessing the degree of his effectiveness. This makes it necessary to develop the problem of determining the criteria not only for the assimilation of knowledge, the formation of skills and skills, but also the criteria and methods for cognitive and psychosocial development of students in the educational process.

Closely related to the previous problem is the task of determining the features of managing the educational activities of students. The impact of the management of educational activities on the cognitive and psychosocial development of students is a fact that has been confirmed in many studies. A special deeper study of these processes is the traditional task of the psychology of pedagogical activity.

Among the questions of psychology of pedagogical activity is the development of psychological bases for improving the educational process at all levels of the educational system. It is obvious that the problems of development and improvement of the educational process are first of all assigned to teachers, not challenging their priority role in these issues, we must understand that this task has a considerable psychological component.

The place of pedagogical psychology in the system of scientific knowledge

Pedagogical psychology is in contact with the system of scientific knowledge as part of a larger scientific discipline - psychology. Therefore, in order to determine the place of pedagogical psychology in the system of sciences, a solution of at least three problems is required. What place does psychology occupy in the system of scientific knowledge? What place does pedagogical psychology have in the system of psychological sciences? How and with what sciences does pedagogical psychology interact independently?

As psychologists VP Zinchenko and AI Nazarov rightly assert, the word "psychology" is self-sufficient and any adjectives to it testify to the partial nature of scientific trends, various theories, or the modesty of the claims of their authors. Adjective pedagogical it just means that this is a private field of psychological knowledge.

The first thing that is absolutely necessary for determining the place of this or that science in the system of scientific knowledge is the general classification of sciences. The division or classification of sciences is made for different reasons. None of the existing ways of classifying nc is completely satisfactory, but together they are able to draw a picture that clarifies much. Therefore, let us turn to the most widespread methods of science classification in science.

Even in the Renaissance, philosophers divided all sciences into "light-bearing" and fruitful & quot ;. This division indicated that there is knowledge that brings to people the "light of truth", and knowledge giving real fruits. Later this classification was transformed at the level of terminology, so the division of sciences into "fundamental" and applied & quot ;. Despite the often sounding criticism of this unpretentious classification, it is often used in our time.

In those distant times, the distance between a scientific discovery, its practical embodiment and use was usually measured for many years and even decades. Now, when scientific discoveries can be quickly introduced into practice, the statement that "there is nothing more practical than a good theory" is, for most, no longer an exaggeration.

Probably, this is the main reason for treating this classification as unproductive. Modern man understands that any knowledge is profitable and science, even the most, at first sight, far from practice, can quite quickly give quite tangible results.

It is easy to see that criticism is mainly attributed to a particular science to the category of applied. As soon as this happens, immediately there are those who are offended, turning into their own lawyers, and begin to prove that the science they are dealing with, of course, solves practical, applied problems, but at the same time develops many fundamental problems. It's easy to understand that even in the case when the very fundamental component in research is negligible, it can always be found and, if desired, pushed to the fore.

What science, in terms of this classification, should be considered psychology in general and pedagogical psychology as a part of it? Fundamental or applied? Strangely enough, almost any answers to these questions can be considered correct. And psychology in general, and pedagogical psychology in particular, can be proclaimed as fundamental, and applied sciences. However, it is easy to see that applied or "fruitful" the component in pedagogical psychology is clearly superior to the "luminous", while in psychology in general the ratio of fundamental and applied knowledge is somewhat different. It can be argued that the relative weight of fundamental knowledge in psychology as a whole is higher than in most of its private branches (to this number belongs also pedagogical psychology), and the relative importance of applied knowledge is somewhat lower.

Another very common division of sciences is done on the object of research. In this way, a classification was born that divides man's knowledge of the world into science:

- about nature - natural sciences;

- Humanities - Humanities;

- about society - social sciences.

The popularity of this classification is high, although, according to many experts, it is not so much answering questions as it puts new ones, while insoluble.

So, for example, the United States psychologist V.M. Allahverdov not without reason argues that such a division has no practical sense. Developing his thought, he notes that according to this classification, veterinary science and zoopsychology should be recognized as natural sciences, medicine and psychophysiology - humanitarian, and epidemiology and forensic psychiatry - should rather be recognized as social sciences. Evaluating such classification as "nonsense", the author points out that such branches of scientific knowledge as philosophy, linguistics, agronomy, and mathematics have no place in this classification at all. It is difficult not to agree with such statements, despite their rigidity, but one can not ignore the other, for example, that in certain situations this classification works successfully.

The same V.M. Allahverdov quite seriously discusses the question of which of these areas is psychology, is it a humanitarian or natural science. Most researchers state that for more than a century of its independent existence, psychology has not reached the level of natural sciences. At the same time, it is also categorically incorrect to consider it a humanitarian science, if only because it constantly expressed and manifested the desire to move along the natural scientific track. These debatable questions are relevant for modern psychological knowledge and many aspects of this problem are actively discussed in relation to pedagogical psychology.

At the end of the 20th century, according to a number of well-known scientists, there was a tendency to orientate in the development of a general psychological methodology for psychological practice or psychotechnics. Thus, F. E. Vasilyuk in the mid-1990s. argued that in our time for psychology pet is nothing more theoretical than good practice. Can we agree with this statement? Obviously, this is emphasized by many scientists (VM Allakhverdov, VA Mazilov, etc.), practice is not very similar to science and this path can lead only to the elimination of science itself.

These brief arguments indicate a phenomenon, loudly called in the scientific community, the "crisis of psychology". The problem of the crisis of psychology is actively discussed in modern science, but one should not think that this crisis is a one-stage phenomenon. Thus, in 1898 a book by R. Willy was published under the title "Psychology crisis". Then this problem was actively debated in a series of works of the same name by other authors (K. Buller, LS Vygodsky, and others).

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)