Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Pedagogia: Arta sau Stiinta?

Lumea contemporana este caracterizata de departe de o evolutie rapida a tehnologiei,


stiintelor, artelor si a tuturor elementelor prin care oamenii incearca sa isi cladeasca noi
stiluri de viata. Observam o explozie de idei, inventii tehnologice la care omul trebuie sa
se adapteze, insa ritmul de adaptare difera in functie de varsta, cultura, experiente,
context etc.
Posibilitatea de progres a omului se focalizeaza in jurul ideei conform careia fiintele
umane pot fi influentate semnificativ de educatie sau prin educatie.
De-a lungul timpului, a existat in permanenta nevoia de a educa copiii. Si dintotdeauna au
existat pedagogi – persoane care dezvolta programe pedagogice pe baza analizei
propriilor experiente (teoreticieni ai procesului educational).
Pentru a urmari evolutia peadagogiei este foarte important sa definim conceptul de
pedagogie care a suferit mai multe schimbari de-a lungul secolelor. Conform celor de la
britannica.com pedagogia reprezinta studiul metodelor de invatare, incluzand obiectivele
educatiei si modalitatile prin care acestea pot fi atinse. Acest domeniu se bazeaza foarte
mult pe educatia psihologica, care cuprinde teoriile stiintifice ale invatarii si, intr-o
oarecare masura, pe filosofia educatiei, considerand obiectivele si valoarea educatiei
dintr-o perspectiva filosofica.
Acest concept a fost mereu asociat cu istoria dezvoltarii gandirii si a progresului
cunoasterii.
Pedagogia ca o arta

Chiar inca de la inceput, educatia a avut statutul de arta – arta invatarii, de a conduce
copiii catre cunoastre. Acest concept ne aduce aminte de faptul ca profesia de pedagog a
avut ca punct de plecare Grecia Antica. Rolul pedagogului era destinat sclavilor, care
aveau indatorirea de a duce copiii stapanilor la scoala, sa aiba grija de starea lor fizica, sa
ii insoteasca la jocuri sau la activitatile acestora.
Tatal fondator al educatiei este considerat la nivel global ca fiind Socrate (secolul 5 i.H.)
Pentru a cataloga pedagogia ca o arta creativa, se poate spune ca ea este o intreprindere
artistica. Asa cum pictorii isi aleg materialele de lucru, la fel si profesorii, educatorii
decid ce metode de lucru vor aplica in clasa. Cel mai bun artist sau profesor este cel care
pune cele mai puternice intrebari, multe dintre ele fara a avea un raspuns.
La fel ca un artist care

In the end, an artist acts upon a canvas or a mound of clay to create something masterful.
The materials themselves have no agency; you'd never see a bit of orange paint offer the
artist some feedback. This, of course, is very different from our students, each of whom
must use what she or he learns in our courses to fashion a life outside of the university.
To envision teaching as an art, then, is to see it as a one-way transaction with the
instructor as a kind of Pygmalion figure charged with shaping the countless Galateas
sitting in our classrooms. This is hardly the case.
This artistic argument has also led to what I think might be one of the most problematic
misconceptions about teaching: if teaching is an art, then aren't our best teachers simply
born to stand in front of the classroom in the same way that those who are talented in
other pursuits come by their skills naturally? I think the answer to this is a resounding
"No," and it should be said that many artists balk at the idea that their success has more to
do with natural gifts than with hard work. In particular, the notion that good teaching is
innate can sometimes be demoralizing (“I’m just not good enough, and I never will be"),
or it can serve as a convenient excuse not to improve (“I’m just not gifted in that way, so
why bother”). I won’t deny that some people are inherently more gifted at public
speaking than others, but it is simply not true that people are born to be excellent
teachers, and the perpetuation of this myth ultimately does higher education more harm
than good.

Because outstanding teaching is primarily about creating the conditions in which our
students can learn most effectively, being an excellent teacher does not hinge on genetic
predisposition, but—instead—on a solid understanding of how human beings learn
(particularly, but not exclusively, in connection with a given discipline) and on having a
genuine empathy for students. Also: a lot of hard work.

Is Teaching a Science?

I think it is fairly easy to see the applicability of the scientific method to teaching. Our
greatest teachers observe their students and create rudimentary hypotheses about the best
ways to ensure their students are learning. They then test these hypotheses via activities,
assignments, and other kinds of assessments, and evaluate the results. I don't think this is
necessarily a controversial claim, especially because there is excellent pedagogical
research published every year that employs methods very similar to this.

I do think, however, that this view of teaching is sometimes criticized for being
impersonal. After all, our students are not experimental subjects. They bring with them
into our classrooms their hopes, fears, joys, and sorrows. They each have the potential to
surprise us, to create new knowledge, to develop insights that move our disciplines
forward. Science can certainly be surprising, but the scientific comparison takes away
some of the human interaction that makes teaching such an amazing, exhilarating
profession to begin with.

A Different Sort of Question

In truth, teaching is probably a little bit of art and a little bit of science when it is done
well, but what if we shifted the nature of the discussion altogether?

The biggest problem with both of these comparisons is that they focus primarily on what
is happening at the front of the classroom. The emphasis in the art/science divide is
placed on the teacher, rather than the students. As I suggested above, though, the most
effective teaching is that which helps students learn to the greatest extent possible. I wish
this were an original claim, but I am hardly the first person to argue for placing learning
at the center of our views on pedagogy. In fact, this has been the tenor of the
conversation at least since Robert B. Barr and John Tagg's 1995 article "From Teaching to
Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education," but I'm certain the sentiment
goes back even further.

So how might we change the art vs. science question to reflect this positioning of
learning? Though we'll have to sacrifice the nicely compact nature of the original, a new
version of this question might ask whether achieving a deep understanding of how our
students learn (both in general and about our fields) is more of an art or a science.

The sorts of collaborations with students that might reveal this knowledge could certainly
be called creative and even artistic. I also think there is something of an art to being
attuned to students' individual approaches to learning (or their Zones of Proximal
Development) and adjusting our strategies and techniques accordingly in order to ensure
we are helping as many students as possible.

What about science? I have to admit I'm biased here. As someone who is writing a book
on the science of learning, I lean more heavily in this direction. Because learning has its
basis in the neurobiological mechanisms of the body, I think science has much to teach us
about learning. Learning is also rooted in the social world as well, so the fields of
sociology and psychology provide further opportunities for understanding. If we
embrace the science of learning, it becomes much easier to see teaching as something that
every instructor can do well. Scientific principles of learning, which are firmly grounded
in research, can help to establish a solid foundation on which we may all build effective,
even exemplary, courses.

Pedagogy is a science

At the end of the 19th century, the development of such scientific fields as sociology and
psychology is accompanied by the emergence of pedagogy as an applied science,” that is,
it starts to be viewed as a true science. Pedagogy is now treated as a science with the
understanding that its ultimate objective, as in the other cases, is not so much to describe
or explain but instead to guide the process of teaching and learning. That is, it’s a field of
science that just might to teach us how to teach. It’s no coincidence that we’ve used the
subjunctive mood here, since pedagogy – as the science of teaching and learning – is not
a fully-formed discipline, thereby leaving room for other educational sciences, a plural
science. It became clear over time that the exotic science known as “Pedagogy” could not
be soluble there.

Pedagogy is an applied science

Today, we no longer debate whether pedagogy is an art or a science. We live at a time


when pedagogy – just as medicine or politics – is viewed as an “applied science,” that is,
as a discipline geared towards the practical application of acquired knowledge.
Thus, the history of pedagogy is the history of pedagogues or, as Jean Houssaye put it, of
the practitioners and theorists of the instructional process. At issue are the men and
women “engaged in the actual educational process, using both theoretical concepts and
practical skills combined in such a way as to obscure the extent to which the practical
skills employed in the educational process are more important than theoretical concepts,
and vice versa.”

“And, as the pedagogy specialist points out, this particular side of the issue has frequently
remained hidden and unknown. Has this been intentional? No, but for some reason,
preference has often been given to the loftier element of the equation – that is, to the
theoretical.” For this reason, many pedagogues were relegated to the ranks of
philosophers, educational theorists and thinkers – that is to say, it was commonplace not
to refer to them as pedagogues at all. Nevertheless, in other instances, people entirely
ignored the other aspect of pedagogy – its theoretical side, thereby assigning pedagogues
a purely practical role. In such cases, pedagogues were viewed as teachers and
instructors. Such a classification only took the practical aspect of their occupation into
consideration, ignoring the theory behind teaching and instruction.

Today, it’s extremely important to provide a precise definition of “pedagogy.” It’s


essential to avoid the overlapping of ideas, imprecision, and demonstrate that education
has its own raison d’etre, since lurking behind its status the battle rages on. Finally, it’s
vital to establish the rightful place education should occupy in today’s structure of
modern science. Defining pedagogy as an “applied science” should help calm the
polemic by demonstrating that the specific knowledge acquired through educational
practice is actually fundamental knowledge. This knowledge, however, cannot replace
theoretical, scientific knowledge in the given discipline, but may only serve as a
complement thereto. Both the theoretical fundamentals and the practical skills are
essential.

Pedagogia este un concept care nu poate fi limitat in a fi o arta sau o stiinta intr-un mod
specific. Arta invatarii presupune multa vointa. Fiecare persoana implicata in acest proces
lucreaza pentru indeplinirea unui scop comun : de a invata. In realizarea acestui tel, se
ajunge la imbinarea artei cu stiinta.