.png)
.png)
Email this article 
The aim of education as an object of socio-philosophical research
https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2024-2-4
Abstract
Introduction. The research presented in the article is aimed at identifying the most significant aspects of the problems of educational aims. The existing ways of understanding the aims of education are considered, and conclusions are drawn regarding their distinctive features. The connection between the problems of the aim of education and other aspects of the philosophical reflection of education is shown – questions of the definition of education and criteria for assessing educational results. Purpose setting. The research sets the task of generalizing modern socio-philosophical ideas about the aim of education. The authors adhere to the position that the emergence, change, and functioning of educational aims are primarily determined by social factors. Methodology and methods of the study. In the course of the study, methods of substantive and comparative analysis of domestic and foreign literature devoted to the problems of educational aims were used. Results. Significant milestones in the development of understanding the problems of the aim of education in a socio-philosophical key are highlighted. The content of the normative approach to understanding the aim of education, developed by R.S. Peters, is considered, as well as the connection between his concept of the aim of education and the understanding of education as initiation. The innovations of the functionalist approach to understanding the aim of education are analyzed. The importance of distinguishing between the types of aims that appear in the educational context is shown. Some of the positions concerning the conditioning of educational aims by the influence of other social institutions – political, economic – are reproduced. Conclusion. The authors are inclined to the idea of the multidimensionality of the aim of education, its complexity. They emphasize the limitations of binary classifications of educational aims. The analysis carried out allows us to conclude that the question of the aim of education is one of the priorities for the socio-philosophical comprehension of educational reality.
About the Authors
D. V. RakhinskyRussian Federation
Dmitry V. Rakhinsky – Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Public Health and Healthcare, Professor V.F. Voino-Yasenetsky Krasnoyarsk State Medical University; Professor of the Department of Civil Law and Procedure, Krasnoyarsk State Agrarian University.
1 Partizana Zheleznyaka Str., Krasnoyarsk, 660022; 90 Mira Ave., Krasnoyarsk, 660049
G. V. Panasenko
Russian Federation
Galina V. Panasenko – Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of Theory and Methods of Social Work, Law Institute, Siberian Federal University.
6 Maerchaka Str., Krasnoyarsk, 660075V. V. Mineev
Russian Federation
Valery V. Mineev – Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Economics and Law, Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V.P. Astafyev.
89 Lady Lebedevoy Str., Krasnoyarsk, 660049S. P. Shtumpf
Russian Federation
Svetlana P. Shtumpf – Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of the Department of philosophy, economics and law, Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V.P. Astafyev.
89 Lady Lebedevoy Str., Krasnoyarsk, 660049A. G. Mikhailichenko
Russian Federation
Alexander G. Mikhailichenko – Head of the Surgical Department, Krasnoyarsk Regional Center of Medical Education.
3zh Partizana Zheleznyaka Str., Krasnoyarsk, 660022References
1. Gurevich P. S. Philosophy of education: theory and practice. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, 2006, no. 4, pp. 31 – 38. (In Russ.).
2. Shurukhina T. N. New philosophy of education: an attempt to comprehend pedagogical reality. Pedagogika. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2016, no. 2, pp. 48 – 50. (In Russ.).
3. Retyunskikh L. T. Education as thinking, or The role of philosophy in the educational system. Filosofskie nauki, 2023, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 24 – 50. (In Russ.).
4. Rozin V. M. Philosophy of education: etudes-studies. Moscow, Izd-vo Mosk. psikhol.-sots. in-ta, 2007, 576 p. (In Russ.).
5. Semechko E. E. Philosophy of education: initial concepts and problems. Vestnik evraziiskoi nauki, 2015, no. 2, pp. 1 – 10. (In Russ.).
6. Hirst P. H. The nature of educational aims. The aims of education. London, New York, Routledge, 1999, pp. 124 – 132.
7. Gingell J., Winch C. Philosophy of education: the key concepts. London, New York, Routledge, 2008, 272 p.
8. Petrov V. V. Educational request formation in the context of knowledge capitalization. Professional’noe obrazovanie v sovremennom mire, 2018, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1981 – 1989. (In Russ.).
9. Petrov M. A. The problem of persons in global education: features of relationships in the context of the latest information technologies. Professional’noe obrazovanie v sovremennom mire, 2019, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2909 – 2919. (In Russ.).
10. Whitehead A. N. The aims of education. Daedalus, 1955, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 192 – 205.
11. Peters R. S. The philosophy of education. The study of education. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966, pp. 1 – 23.
12. Peters R. S. Education and the education of teachers. London, New York, Routledge, 1977, 208 p.
13. Peters R. S. Ethics and education. London, George Allen and Unwin, 1970, 333 p.
14. Cotter R. Peters’ concept of «education as initiation»: communitarian or individualist? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2013, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 171 – 181.
15. Sockett H. Curriculum aims and objectives: taking a means to an end. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, 1972, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 30 – 61.
16. Kelly A. V. The curriculum: theory and practice. London, Chapman, 1989, 320 p.
17. Biesta G. What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 2015, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 75 – 87.
18. Carr D. Making sense of education. An introduction to the philosophy and theory of education and teaching. London, New York, Routledge, 2003, 312 p.
19. Moore T. W. Philosophy of education: an introduction. London, New York, Routledge, 2010, 76 p.
20. Nunn T. P. Education: its data and first principles. London, Edward Arnold & Co., 1920, 260 p.
21. White J. The aims of education restated. London, Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2010, 192 p.
22. Yakovleva N. G. The contradictions of education of the 21st century: a look through the prism of Marxist methodology. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7, Filosofiya, 2018, no. 6, pp. 45 – 62. (In Russ.).
23. Winch C. Autonomy as an educational aim. The aims of education. London, New York, Routledge, 1999, pp. 74 – 84.
24. Edgley R. Education, work and politics. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 1980, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3 – 16.
25. Chernykh S. I. Education as a social and individual benefit. Professional’noe obrazovanie v sovremennom mire, 2015, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17 – 26. (In Russ.).
Supplementary files
For citation: Rakhinsky D.V., Panasenko G.V., Mineev V.V., Shtumpf S.P., Mikhailichenko A.G. The aim of education as an object of socio-philosophical research. Professional education in the modern world. 2024;14(2):222-231. https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2024-2-4
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
