Paradigms in Modern Higher Education Development
The theoretical and methodological analysis of modern educational paradigms is made in the article and axiological vectors of higher education development are distinguished on this basis. Four basic educational paradigms have been identified: cognitive informational (traditional, cognitive), personal (humanistic), competence and cultural (humanitarian). It has been found that, unlike instrument-oriented learning, which provides the translation, reproduction and assimilation of knowledge, skills, technologies (cognitive informational and competence paradigms) and therefore is secondary to the processes of personality development, education should firstly be focused on becoming holistic personality, ensure his organic and unique (personal and cultural paradigms). It has been substantiated that at the theoretical level there is a sharp narrowing of the semantic field of scientific and pedagogical reflection: attention is paid to the production of the amount of knowledge, given social behavior, technologies of activity of the future specialist. Therefore, education in its humanitarian sense suffers first of all and the quality of education is often reduced to the level of acquisition of special knowledge and mastery of professional skills. It has been shown that higher education institutions are more and more inclined to a pragmatic education, training professionals, and functionaries. In this case, information overload blocks the affective-emotional sphere of the individual, prevents adequate, holistic perception of reality, actualization of creative potential. It is determined that the reform of modern education should be based on the idea of the integrity, which actualizes the problem of careful reflexive and methodological support of the modern higher education system and the development of specific humanitarian educational technologies.
Asmolov, A. G. (1996). Kulturno-ystorycheskaia psykholohyia y konstruyrovanye myrov (Cultural-historical psychology and world-building). Institute of Practical Psychology, Voronezh: MODEK. 768 p.
Baudrillard, J. (2004). Symvolichnyi obmin i smert (Symbolic exchange and death). Calvary. 376 p.
Bondarevskaya, E. V., Ivanova, E. O., & Osmolovskaya, I. M. (2005). Teoryia y praktyka lychnostno-oryentyrovannoho obrazovanyia. Lychnostno-oryentyrovannoe obuchenye: Khrestomatyia [Theory and practice of personality-oriented education. Personalized Oriented Learning: Readers]. SSU. pp. 116-162.
Breslav, G. M. (1997). Obrazovanye y podhotovka psykholohov: dylemmy humanystycheskoi psykholohyy[ Education and training of psychologists: dilemmas of humanistic psychology]. In D. A. Leonteva, & V. G. Shchur (Eds.), Psykholohyia s chelovecheskym lytsom: humanystycheskaia perspektyva v postsovetskoi psykholohyy (Psychology with the Human Face: A Humanist Perspective in Post-Soviet Psychology). Sense. pp. 249-256.
Frank, V. (1990). Chelovek v poyskakh smusla (Man in Search of Meaning). Progress. 367 p.
Fromm, E. (1990). Ymet yly but (Have or be). Progress. 336 p.
Gusinsky, E. N., & Turchaninova, Y. I. (2000). Vvedenye v fylosofyiu obrazovanyia: Ucheb. posobye [Introduction to the Philosophy of Education: Textbook]. Logos. 223 p.
Kagan, M. S. (2007). Systemno-synerhetycheskyi podkhod k postroenyiu sovremennoi pedahohycheskoi teoryy. Synerhetycheskaia paradyhma. Synerhetyka obrazovanyia [System-synergetic approach to the construction of modern pedagogical theory. Synergistic paradigm. Synergetics of education]. Progress-Tradition. pp. 212-245.
Radchuk, G. K. (2014). Aksiopsykholohiia vyshchoi shkoly (Monohrafiia) [Axiopsychology of high school (Monograph)]. Ternopil, TNGU named after V.Gnatyuk. 380 p.
Radchuk, G. K. (2017). Osvitnii dialoh yak innovatsiina humanitarna tekhnolohiia profesiinoho stanovlennia osobystosti. Pedahohichnyi protses: teoriia i praktyka / Zbirnyk naukovykh prats [Educational dialogue as an innovative humanitarian technology for the professional development of personality. The pedagogical process: theory and practice / Collection of scientific works]. Kyiv, LLC EDELVEYS Publishing Company, 1, pp. 3 - 19.
Rogers, K., & Freberg, J. (2002). Svoboda uchytsia (Freedom to learn). In A. B. Orlov (Ed.). Nauch. The Meaning. 527 p.
Romenets, V. A. (2006). Vchynok i postannia kanonichnoi psykholohii [The act and figure of canonical psychology]. In V. O. Tatenka (Ed.), Liudyna. Subiekt. Vchynok: Filosofsko-psykholohichni studii [Man. Subject. Action: Philosophical and Psychological Studies]. Lybid, p.11-36.
Copyright (c) 2021 LUMEN Proceedings
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited