In the scientific heritage of one of the coryphaeus of national pedagogy, Kostiantyn D. Ushynsky, the development of didactics as a system occupies a prominent place.
It is known that K. Ushynsky aimed to synthesize materials for his “Anthropology” and to give a brief pedagogical part on their basis, which he called “Concise Textbook of Pedagogy” (sometimes it is called “General Didactics” or “Our Pedagogy”). However, K. Ushynsky failed to complete the development of didactics and present it in a systematic way. The third volume of “Pedagogical Anthropology” remained unfinished and came to us only as pre-materials.
During the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries the “Pedagogical Anthropology” was published more than once, both in full and brief form. In 1913 the 13th edition was published. The initial version of this work is a series of papers “The most important features of the human body in application to the art of education”. The scientist carried out synthesis of scientific knowledge about an individual, which revealed huge untapped resources of human development, and education had focus on them. Ushynsky comprehensively and systematically researched the theoretical foundations of the pedagogical process in primary and secondary schools, so it is no wonder that researchers consider him the founder and classic of national pedagogy, in particular, didactics.
K. Ushynsky believed that the scientific basis of didactics as an organic component of pedagogy is aimed at identifying and studying the fundamental principles on which pedagogy could establish scientific regularities and special characteristics of teaching and educating students, with the help of sciences which are related to pedagogy. He mentioned anatomy, human physiology, psychology, logic, philology, geography, statistics, political economy and history among such sciences. “If pedagogy wants to educate a person in all senses,” Ushynsky said, “it must first know him or her in all respects.”
He scientifically substantiated in his anthropological works two interdependent aspects of didactics: its scientific foundations and system. For example, in the introduction to the first volume of “Anthropology” Kostiantyn Ushynsky considers didactics as learning. One of the leitmotifs of his fundamental work is that learning is intrinsically a powerful “mean of education”, hence, learning is closely related to education. He understood the importance of didactics as an integral part of pedagogy, in revealing the process of mental development of a child and establishing the main factors of the educational process.
Therefore, according to Ushynsky, the theoretical basis of didactics is a systematic analysis of two closely related pedagogical issues: the objective-logical aspect of the process of cognition and its objective psychophysiological factors. The educator considered learning an important element in forming principals of thinking and cognition.
Kostiantyn Ushynsky details the structure of the process of cognition in the first volume of “The Experience of Pedagogical Anthropology”. Given that cognition (as a reflection of the natural phenomena and spiritual and cultural life in our consciousness) passes through various stages, K. Ushynsky distinguishes three logical benchmarks: a) cognition at the stage of sensory perception; b) cognition at the stage of the reflection process, which operates with concepts developed on the basis of abstraction of feelings and ideas, generalized in abstract images; c) cognition at the highest ideological and theoretical stage, which is embodied in the creation of concepts that, due to their creative nature, determine the vector of cognitive processes and pedagogical activities, directing them beyond empirical data.
Kostiantyn Ushynsky considered education as a work full of productive thought, which requires intense attention from students, and this real work must be consistent with the natural possibilities of child development. Analyzing the strategic objectives of the new model of learning, he compared the system of scientific knowledge with a pyramid, at the top of which is a scientist who reached this peak due to persistent, long scientific pursuits, and at its foot are students seeking to ascend to the top. It is clear that in order to solve this difficult task, it is necessary to gradually surmount the hurdles following the strategic guideline, and this path will lead to the desired goal.
According to K. Ushynsky, it is necessary to carry out pedagogical transformation of sciences into curricula, plans and courses, starting with simple elements of scientific truth and gradually rising to higher scientific levels. He draws attention to the need to develop new methods of educational work, which requires not only memorizing the results of scientific activities, but also active practical participation in the implementation of these results in the areas pioneered by thinkers. Morally outdated, passive teaching methods cannot be productive, much less promising. Instead, the new one should be developed on the basis of sincere desire and stimulation of students to creative initiative and self-activity, based on the correctly chosen guideline for pedagogical development.
Based on a thorough comparative analysis of teaching methods in European countries, K. Ushynsky revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of European pedagogy. For example, the English school, Ushynsky says, seeks first and foremost to educate a person, especially the English gentleman, but Germany remains committed to the general historical line in the school system, which is expressed in the attainment of scientific truth. The educator emphasizes that “the German school, despite the declarations of pedagogical theory, teaches, not educates”.
K. Ushynsky gradually transformed his innovative didactic system into a scientific system, because, in his opinion, only the scientific system is able to retain a significant amount and variety of semantic information in memory and logical connection. He developed a deeply progressive, original, well-founded system of general didactics. On this basis, the didactics of primary education was developed.
K. Ushynsky’s didactics has preserved its scientific and cognitive value and methodological significance for the today’s understanding of the model of the so-called “new Ukrainian school”, whose initiator is the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine; the Ministry is focused on its development and practical implementation. It is important for its ideologues to remember the eloquent words of K. Ushynsky that the school “is not able to reject life, but life easily rejects the school activities, which become an obstacle for it”. That is why pedagogy, and didactics as well, must always be aware of trends in life, science, education and culture. And the most important method of human education according to K. Ushynsky is conviction, which can be influenced only by convictions. “An educator”, the famous educator said, “can never be a blind executor of an instruction, which will have no feeble if not warmed by the warmth of educator’s personal convictions.”
K. Ushynsky’s fruitful pedagogical ideas in the field of didactics, which formulate the methodological foundations of the content, principles and goals of education, education of a civilized person, are still relevant in both theoretical and practical dimensions, and therefore, require not only critical thinking but also creative development in the context of the formation of new paradigms of national pedagogical science. Historical and pedagogical experience convincingly proves that the creative figure of K. Ushynsky, his deep intellectual pedagogical ideas belong not only to the past, but also determine the methodological determinants, worldview of modern didactic thought, must be comprehensively understood, re-read and harmoniously implemented into the dynamic controversial educational and scientific life of Ukraine.
Anatoliy PAVKO, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Laureate of the M.S. Hrushevsky Prize of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
Liudmyla KURILO, PhD in Pedagogy, Laureate of the Honorary Award “K.D. Ushynsky” of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine
Svit newspaper, № 47 – 48, December 2021