he article deals with the peculiarities of use of presentism as an approach in historical knowledge connected with the relationship between the past and the present. The essence of presentism, its cognitive potential, types, strengths and weaknesses are revealed. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the cognitive capabilities of presentism as a research strategy in history of education, the identification of the risks that arise in connection with its use. It is shown that the main reasons for using presentism in historical and pedagogical research are as follows: substantiation of the relevance of the chosen topic; construction of a methodological research project; substantiation of the practical significance of the results obtained. The emphasis is made on the fact that the presentist approach, the use of which is inevitable, can lead to the distortion of the past, generate bias and tendentiousness in historical analysis, conclusions, generalizations, interpretations, assessments and, thereby, reduce the objectivity, scientific character and theoretical potential of the results obtained. Overcoming the negative consequences of the use of peresentism requires balance and attitude to the historical and pedagogical experience as a unique, inimitable phenomenon that cannot be transferred and repeated in the present in order to solve up-to-date educational problems.

No abstract

The article identifies the features and substantiates the algorithm for using the paradigmatic approach in research on the history of education and pedagogical thought. In this regard, the concept of “pedagogical paradigm” is clarified, which is considered as a theoretical position or theory accepted by the scientific community as a standard, a model for solving research problems and capable of justifying and implementing a holistic model of education. It is shown that in the course of competition between different approaches to solving pedagogical problems the so-called binary oppositions are formed – polar points of view, and the opposition between them reflects the genesis of pedagogical theory within certain chronological frameworks. Attention is paid to quantization, which is the deployment of phases of the pedagogical paradigm. On this basis, the algorithm has been defined, i.e. the sequence of actions when applying the paradigmatic approach in research on the history of education and pedagogical thought, including: analysis of philosophical and pedagogical concepts, ideas, positions that led to qualitative changes in public education policy, theory and practice of education during the period under analysis; identification within the pedagogical concepts of binary oppositions – polar points of view on the essence of education, the criteria for selecting the content of education, forms and methods of educational activities; determining the impact of new pedagogical paradigms on mass educational practice.

No abstract

The article deals with the origins of facilitation as a way of organizing the joint activities of participants in the educational process, outlines the direction of its transformation in the historical dynamics. It is shown that the beginnings of the facilitative approach can be traced in the dialogical method of teaching used by Socrates. The basis for the application of the ideas of facilitation in education were also the principle of naturalness of education and Ya. A. Komenskyi’s classroom system, J. Locke’s empirical-sensualist theory of knowledge, J.-J. Rousseau’s concept of free education, J. H Pestalozzi’s theory of elementary education. The significance of foreign reformist pedagogy of the end of the XIX – beginning of the XX century, which offered new systems and methods of teaching, including group education of children, is revealed. This required from the teacher new qualities, the ability to organize effective interaction with students, i.e. the presence of certain facilitative skills. The contribution of the famous psychologist K. Rogers, an ardent supporter of human-centered learning in substantiating the idea of facilitation in education, is considered. The scientist proceeded from the fact that the disadvantage of the traditional system of education is the overestimation of the role of teaching and teachers and the underestimation of the role of conscious learning and student. He insisted on the need to shift the emphasis from teaching to learning and advised teaching not as a translation of information, but as a facilitation of the processes of conscious learning.