The philosophy of the activity approach in contemporary education

Annotation

The article is devoted to the consideration of the concept of activity approach in education. This phrase is used everywhere, and as a rule, each author puts a different meaning into its content. Obviously, when considering this problem professionally, the term should have clear boundaries and a relatively strict, preferably unambiguous understanding. To find these boundaries, the authors used not the method of listing the positions of different authors, but the method of using alternative concepts, usually not used in scientific and pedagogical texts. Therefore, if there is an activity-based approach to education, then there must also be an “inactivity” approach, which would be more correct to call the “theoretical” approach. Even a little immersion in pedagogical anthropology and the history of our civilization allows us to see that the age of the activity approach in education should not be counted from the 20s of the twentieth century, as it is claimed by many supporters of the reasoning about the activity approach, its life expectancy is measured for millennia. More precisely, with an activity-based approach to education, all education once began - initially, people learned anything in the process of performing the activity itself. The development of the sphere of production and the complication of social processes have led to the need for a strict separation of learning from activity. Learning by inclusion in the activity turned out to be neither effective nor rational, and the attempt of a number of modern researchers to develop an active approach to education turns out to be not productive.

Keywords

• activity approach in education
• theoretical approach in education
• method of using alternative concepts
• declarative knowledge
• procedural knowledge
• problem of subject
• reconceptualization of subject
• deconceptualisation of the subject
• subjectivity
• non-classical philosophy
• post-non-classical philosophy
• philosophy of education
* click on a keyword to go to the search

Contribution of the authors

Savenkov A. I. – research concept, methodology development, research topic, writing the draft, final conclusions; Karneev R. R. – participation in development of research topic, developing the concept of the reconceptualisation of subject, follow-on revision of the text, final conclusions.

References

1. Alsuleyman, M. I., Yakovleva, S. I. Aktivnye metody obucheniya v vysshey shkole [Active teaching methods at high school]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya “Geografiya i geoekologiya” [Vestnik TVGU. Series “Geography and Geoecology”]. 2019, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 73–83, doi: 10.26456/2226-7719-2019-4-73-83.
2. Andreson, J. R. Kognitivnaya psikhologiya [Сognitive psychology]. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2002, 496 p.
3. Asad, T. Vozniknovenie sekulyarnogo: khristianstvo, islam, modernost [Formation of the secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity]. Moscow: Novoye literaturnoe obozreniye; 2020, 376 p. 
4. Asmolov, A. G. Antropologiya ot Petra: Lev Vygotskiy Petra Shchedrovickogo [Antropology of Peter: Lev Vygotsky witnessed by Peter Schedrovitsky]. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy]. 2019, vol. 9, pp. 219–222, doi: 10.31857/S004287440006333-1.
5. Braidotti, R. Postchelovek [The Posthuman]. Moscow: Logos; 2021, 408 p. 
6. Bourdieu, P. Sotsiologiya sotsialnogo prostranstva [Sociology of Social Space]. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya; 2005, 288 p. 
7. Wittgenstein, L. Filosofskie issledovaniya [Philosophical Investigations]. Filosofskie raboty: v dvukh tomakh [Philosophical works: in 2 vols]. Moscow: Gnozis; 1994, vol. 1, 206 p.
8. Gastev, A. Leonardo da Vintsi [Leonardo da Vinci]. Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya; 2009, 400 p.
9. Golant, E. Ya. Metody obucheniya v sovetskoy shkole [Methods of teaching in the Soviet school]. Moscow; State educational and pedagogical Publ. House of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR; 1957, 151 p.
10. Daston, L., Galison, P. Obektivnost [Objectivity]. Moscow: Novoye literaturnoe obozreniye; 584 p.
11. Karneev, R. R. Proekt rekontseptualizatsii subekta: nezavershennaya sborka [The project of reconceptualisation of the subject: incomplete assembly]. Kontsept: filosofiya, religiya, kultura [Concept: philosophy, religion, culture]. 2022, vol. 6, no. 1 (21), pp. 7–19, doi: 10.24833/2541-8831-2022-1-21-7-19.
12. Klarin, M. V. Nasledie Vygotskogo i osnovy kouchinga. Zona blizhayshego razvitiya [Vygotsky's legacy and the basics of coaching. The zone of the nearest development]. Kouching: metodologiya, nauchnye osnovy i professionalnaya etika [Coaching: Methodology, Scientific Foundations and Professional Ethics]. Moscow: Znanie-M; 2020, pp. 63–68, doi: 10.38006/907345-57-7.63.68.  
13.  Kuznetsov, V. Yu. Peresborka subektov i problema razvitiya [Reassembling the subject and the problem of development]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki [Philosophy of Science and Technology]. 2017, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 148–156, doi: 10.21146/2413-9084-2017-22-2-148-156.
14. Kumskov, V. V. Pedagogicheskie idei D. Dyui i sovetskoe obrazovanie 1920-kh gg [Dewey’s Pedagogical Ideas and Soviet Education in 1920-s]. Yaroslavskiy pedagogicheskiy vestnik [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin]. 2011, no. 3, pp. 7–11.
15. Latour, B. Peresborka sotsialnogo: vvedenie v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu [Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics; 2014, 384 p.
16. Levinas, E. Izbrannoe: Totalnost i beskonechnoe [Totality and Infinity]. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga; 2000, 416 p. 
17. Lektorskiy, V. Deyatelnostnyy podkhod: smert ili vozrozhdenie? [Activity approach: death or rebirth?]. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy]. 2002, vol. 2, pp. 56–65.
18. Leontev, A. A. Deyatelnyy um (Deyatelnost, Znak, Lichnost) [The active mind (Activity, sign, personality)]. Moscow: Smysl; 2001, 392 p.
19. Leontev, A. N. O formirovanii sposobnostey [On the formation of abilities]. Voprosy psikhologii [Questions of Psychology]. 1960, no. 1, pp. 7–17.
20. Logos [Logos]. 2020, vol. 30, no. 1.
21. Marion, J.-L. Ego, ili nadelyonnyy soboy [Au lieu de soi, l'approche de saint Augustin]. Moscow: Ripol Klassik; 2019, 159 p.
22. Negarestani, R. Rabota nechelovecheskogo [Nonhuman labor]. Logos. 2021, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1–38, doi: 10.22394/0869-5377-2021-3-1-36.
23. Ryle, G. Ponyatie soznaniya [The Concept of mind]. Moscow: Ideya-Press, Dom intellektualnoy knigi; 1999, 408 p.
24. Rozov, M. A. V poiskah Zhar-ptitsy [In search of the Firebird]. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy]. 2005, no. 6, pp. 63–82.
25. Rubinshteyn, S. L. Chelovek i mir [Man and the world]. Moscow: Nauka; 1997, 189 p.
26. Solopova, O. S. Problemnoe obuchenie kak aktivnyy metod obucheniya inostrannym yazykam [Problem-based learning as an active method of teaching foreign languages]. Voprosy pedagogiki [Questions of Pedagogy]. 2020, no. 3–1, pp. 204–207.
27. Freud, S. Tolkovanie snovideniy [The Interpretation of dreams]. Moscow: Lenizdat; 2020, 680 p.
28. Foucault, M. Nadzirat i nakazyvat: rozhdenie tyurmy [Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison]. Moscow: Ad Marginem; 2018, 416 p. 
29. Chekhov A. Vanka. Sobranie sochineniy: v dvenadtsati tomakh [Collected Works: in 12 vols]. Moscow: Pravda; 1985, vol. 5, pp. 213–217.
30. Elkonin, B. D. Sovremennost teorii i praktiki Uchebnoy Deyatelnosti: klyuchevye voprosy i perspektivy [Modern Era of the Theory and Practice of Learning Activity: Key Issues and Perspectives]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education]. 2020, vol. 25, no. 4. pp. 28–39, doi: 10.17759/pse.2020250403.
31. Badiou, A. L’être et évènement [Being and event]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil; 1988, 560 p.
32. Fink, B. The lacanian subject. Princenton: Princenton Press; 1996, 240 p.
33. Les chemins de la Philosophie, France Culture. «Tout liberté est créatrice ou n’est pas» [The Paths of Philosophy, France Culture. “All freedom is creative or it is not”]. Available at: https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/les-chemins-de-la-philosophie/alain-badiou-15-tout-liberte-est-creatrice-ou-nest-pas (accessed: 08.05.2024).
34. Puumeister, O. Biopolitical subjectification. Sign Systems Studies. 2019, vol. 47, no. 1/2, pp. 105–125, doi: 10.12697/SSS.2019.47.1-2.04.
35. Robbins, B. D., Johnson, C. V., Franco, Z., Friedman, H. L. Subjectivity Is No Object: Can Subject-Object Dualism Be Reconciled Through Phenomenology? International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. 2018, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 144–166, doi: 10.24972/ijts.2018.37.2.144.

Popular articles