Konec pedagogiky: kritický esej

Roman Švaříček

Abstrakt


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 jaz yce 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.


Klíčová slova


diskurz; pedagogika založená na důkazech; praktický výzkum; ICT

https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2013-2-3-4

Celý článek:

PDF

Reference

Zobrazit literaturu Skrýt literaturu

A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind. (2004). Washington: U. S. Department of Education.

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

Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning. Economic Journal, 112(482), 735–765.

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

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

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

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. Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (1998). Stories to Live by: Narrative Understanding of School Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149–164.

Clayton, T. (1998). Beyond Mystifi cation: Reconnecting World-System Theory for Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review, 42(4), 479–496. DOI: 10.1086/447524

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technolog y Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

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

Dvořák, D. (2005). Na „důkazech“ založená praxe. Učitelské listy, 13(1), 8.

Edmonds, R. (1981). The Last Obstacle to Equity in Education: Social Class. Theory into Practice, 20(4), 269–272.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Gustavsen, B. (2003b). New forms of knowledge production and the role of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 152–164. DOI: 10.1177/14767503030012003

Hacking, I. (1988). Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design. Isis, A Special Issue on Artifact and Experiment, 79(3), 427–451.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wulf, Ch. (2003). Educational Science. Mnichov, Berlín: Waxmann.




 


Časopis Ústavu pedagogických věd FF MU.

Výkonná redakce: Klára Šeďová, Roman Švaříček, Zuzana Šalamounová, Martin Sedláček, Karla Brücknerová, Petr Hlaďo.

Redakční rada: Milan Pol (předseda redakční rady), Gunnar Berg, Michael Bottery, Hana Cervinkova, Theo van Dellen, Eve Eisenschmidt, Peter Gavora, Yin Cheong Cheng, Miloš Kučera, Adam Lefstein, Sami Lehesvuori, Jan Mareš, Jiří Mareš, Jiří Němec, Angelika Paseka, Jana Poláchová Vašťatková, Milada Rabušicová, Alina Reznitskaya, Michael Schratz, Martin Strouhal, Petr Svojanovský, António Teodoro, Tony Townsend, Anita Trnavčevič, Jan Vanhoof, Arnošt Veselý, Kateřina Vlčková, Eliška Walterová.

Časopis vydává čtyři čísla ročně.

ISSN 1803-7437 (print), ISSN 2336-4521 (online)