.png)
.png)
Email this article 
The category of understanding in the process of forming postgraduate students' research competencies
https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2022-4-4
Abstract
Introduction. The capacity to solve research problems is one of the key universal competencies of future highly qualified specialists. Meanwhile, the process of understanding occupies the central position in research activity. However, the problem is that, unlike most epistemological procedures, the experience of understanding, deeply personal and often unique, is difficult to explore and transmit.
Purpose setting. In this connection, the purpose of the research carried out at the Department of Philosophy, Sociology and Religious Studies of the KSPU named after V. P. Astafiev during 2017–2021 was to trace the dynamics in postgraduate students» ideas about the phenomenon of understanding. More precisely, to identify their reflected experience of understanding and, accordingly, the features of formation of research competencies.
Methodology and methods of the study. The target group included about 50 respondents annually. A typical and non-standardized interview, a survey, a participant observation, elements of the comparative method and longitudinal study, content analysis, logical analysis, and the phenomenological method were used. Surveys, conversations, unstructured interviews conducted among students not only allowed to reveal their ideas about the phenomenon of understanding, but also become a tool for forming these ideas, a means of learning and development. At the same time, the educational process itself acquires the features of a scientific search.
Results. The answers showed that students clearly distinguish epistemological concepts, choose the right definitions, evaluate statements. 75 % of respondents did not make any obvious mistakes. Data were obtained concerning the perception of the difference between the natural sciences and the humanities, between explanation and understanding, as well as data concerning attitudes to a number of other problems.
Conclusion. It has been established that by the end of the first year of study, postgraduate students demonstrated a number of stable achievements: they were aware of the key position of understanding in the system of epistemological procedures and categories; they were able to see the multidimensionality of understanding, its non-reducibility to other epistemological procedures and categories; they master post-nonclassical cognitive strategies and are open to new paradigms in science, education, and social practice. As the comparative analysis shows, the dynamics of students' epistemological preferences is reflecting the trends observed in science and education (a turn from a normative approach to an interpretative-humanistic one, and some other trends).
About the Authors
V. V. MineevRussian Federation
Valery V. Mineev– Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Economics and Law, Professor of the Department of Fundamental Researches and Methodology of Sciences
89 Ady Lebedevoy Str., Krasnoyarsk 660 049
50 Akademgorodok Str.., Krasnoyarsk, 660 036
E. N. Viktoruk
Russian Federation
Elena N. Viktoruk– Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Economics and Law; Leading Researcher of the Laboratory of Scientific and Educational Technologies for Training Highly Qualified Personnel
89 Ady Lebedevoy Str., Krasnoyarsk, 660 049
50 Akademgorodok Str.,, Krasnoyarsk, 660 036
References
1. Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of July 30, 2014 No. 902 «On approval of the federal state educational standard of higher education in the direction of training 44.06.01 Education and pedagogical sciences (the level of training of highly qualified personnel)» (with changes and additions). Garant. URL: https://base.garant.ru/70731950/ (accessed 15.11.2022). (In Russ.).
2. Kvanvig J. L. Knowledge, understanding, and reasons for belief. The Oxford handbook of reasons and normativity. New York, 2018, pp. 685–705.
3. Potochnik A. Scientific explanation: putting communication first. Philosophy of Science, 2016, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 721–732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/687858.
4. Baumberger Ch., Beisbart C., Brun G. What is understanding? An overview of recent debates in epistemology and philosophy of science. Explaining understanding: new perspectives from epistemology and philosophy of science. New York, 2017, pp. 1–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315686110.
5. Ilyinsky I. M., Gourevich P. S. Understanding as a goal of education. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2006, no. 1. pp. 5–15. (In Russ.).
6. Zahavi D. Phenomenology of reflection. Commentary on Husserl»s «Ideas I». Berlin, New York, 2015, pp. 177–194.
7. Mineev V. V. Unity of theoretical-methodological and methodic-practical aspects of philosophy disciplines teaching. Historical, Philosophical, Political and Law Sciences, Culturology and Study of Art. Issues of Theory and Practice, 2012, no. 5–1, pp. 123–127. (In Russ.).
8. Zeleeva V. P. Pedagogical phenomenology: coming back and new meanings. Education and Self-Development, 2010, no. 5, pp. 56–61. (In Russ.).
9. Plekhanov E. A. Phenomenology of education: epistemological aspects. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 2009, no. 2, pp. 58–61. (In Russ.).
10. Kurenkova R. A. Phenomenology of education: the present-day dialogue between philosophy and pedagogy. Professional Education in the Modern World, 2012, no. 1, pp. 43–49. (In Russ.).
11. Timoshchuk E. A. Phenomenology in modern education. Philosophical Thought, 2018, no. 8, pp. 67–72. DOI: 10.25 136/2409–8728.2018.8.24 368. (In Russ.).
12. Draves W. A. How to teach adults. London, Learning Resources Network, 2007, 151 p.
13. Knowles M., Holton E. F., Swanson R. A. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. London, Abingdon, Routledge, 2020, 406 p.
14. Martishina N. I. The concept of the diversity of types of cognition: some consequences of the paradigm. Bulletin of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian Studies, 2016, no. 1, pp. 21–24. (In Russ.).
15. Mikeshina L. A. Philosophy of cognition: polemical chapters. Moscow, Progress-Tradiciya, 2002, 624 p. (In Russ.).
16. Viktoruk E. N., Chernyaeva A. S. The phenomenon of understanding in socio-philosophical reflection. Krasnoyarsk, Siberian State Technological Univ., 2009, 157 p. (In Russ.).
17. Stueber K. R. Understanding versus explanation? How to think about the distinction between the human and the natural sciences. Inquiry, 2012, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 17–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2012.643621.
18. Humphreys P. Analytic versus synthetic understanding. Science, explanation, and rationality: the philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Oxford, 2000, pp. 267–286.
19. Pritchard D. Seeing it for oneself: perceptual knowledge, understanding, and intellectual autonomy. Episteme, 2016, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 29–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2015.59.
20. Riggs W. Understanding «virtue» and the virtue of understanding. Intellectual virtue: perspectives from ethics and epistemology. Oxford, 2003, pp. 203–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252732.003.0010.
21. Heidegger M. Being and time. Kharkiv, Folio, 2003, 503 p. (In Russ.).
22. Gadamer H.‑G. Truth and method: fundamentals of philosophical hermeneutics. Moscow, Progress, 1988, 704 p. (In Russ.).
23. Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: an introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Moscow, Nauka, 2013, 494 p. (In Russ.).
24. Nikiforov A. L. How the modern age science has enriched the humanity? Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 2018, no. 42, pp. 179–187. DOI: 10.17 223/1 998 863Х/42/19. (In Russ.).
25. Kasavin I. T. Trading zones as a subject-matter of social philosophy of science. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 2017, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 8–17. DOI: 10.5840/eps20 175 111. (In Russ.).
26. Grimm S. Understanding. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, 2021. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/understanding/#UndeOntoCate (accessed 15.09.2022).
27. Burnyeat M. F., Barnes J. Socrates and the jury: paradoxes in Plato's distinction between knowledge and true belief. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 1980, vol. 54, iss. 1, pp. 173–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/54.1.173.
Supplementary files
For citation: Mineev V.V., Viktoruk E.N. The category of understanding in the process of forming postgraduate students' research competencies. Professional education in the modern world. 2022;12(4):642-650. https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2022-4-4
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
