The Fundamental Nature of Contemporary University Education: Approaches to Definition and Specifics of Content
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2024.02.011
Abstract
This article addresses the contemporary issue of fundamental content in education, which has become increasingly relevant in the 21st century. The aim of this study is to explore the objective prerequisites and grounds for redefining the term “fundamentality” within the higher education system (although it is noteworthy that re-evaluating the term “fundamental” may also be a significant task for other levels of education). Through a historical-philosophical analysis, this study provides a rationale for the lack of reflection on this issue in the history of education, dating back to antiquity. It defines the concept of “a priori fundamentality,” elucidates the significance of the Enlightenment era in shaping the fundamentality of science and education. The fundamental content of education is linked to the socio-cultural reality and the nature of science at various stages in history. The article also analyzes foreign approaches to defining fundamental education. The novelty of this article lies in introducing the concept of “new fundamentality” based on historical research in science and education, as it applies to modern education. The research materials (empirical and theoretical) were obtained from university education, but the findings can be utilized by educational program developers from other institutions of higher learning, as well as a wide range of education researchers, to establish a new approach to professional education. Keywords: fundamentality, university, philosophy of education, core, pre-adaptation, humanities knowledge, management For citation: Petrova G. I., Ovsyannikova Yu. N., Plusnin L. V. The Fundamental Nature of Contemporary University Education: Approaches to Definition and Specifics of Content. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2024. Vol. 28, nr 2, pp. 7–16. doi 10.15826/umpa.2024.02.011 (In Russ.).
About the Authors
G. I. Petrova
National Research Tomsk State University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Galina I. Petrova – Dr. hab. (Philosophy), Professor, Leading Researcher at the Laboratory of Philosophy of Education at the Institute of Education, Professor of the Faculty of Philosophy
36 Lenin Ave., Tomsk, 634050
Yu. N. Ovsyannikova
National Research Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yulia N. Ovsyannikova – PhD (Philosophy), Associate Professor of the Faculty of Philosophy
36 Lenin Ave., Tomsk, 634050
L. V. Plyusnin
National Research Tomsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lev V. Plyusnin – Head of the Laboratory of Philosophy of Education at the Institute of Education
36 Lenin Ave., Tomsk, 634050
References
1. Carroll L. Alisa v strane chudes. Alisa v Zazerkal’e [Alice in Wonderland. Alice Through the Looking Glass]. Moscow, Eskimo Press, 2000, 215 p. (In Russ.).
2. Platon. Gosudarstvo [Republic]. In: Sobranie sochinenii v 4 t [Collection of Works in Four Volumes], vol. 3, Moscow, Mysl, 1994, pp. 79–116. (In Russ.).
3. Kant I. Otvet na vopros: chto takoe Prosveshchenie? [The Answer to the Question: what is Enlightenment?]. In: Sobranie sochinenii v 6 t [Collection of Works in Six Volumes], vol. 6., Moscow, Mysl, 1966, pp. 25–36. (In Russ.).
4. N’yuton I. Matematicheskie nachala natural’noi filosofii [Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy]. Moscow, Nauka, 1989. 688 p. (In Russ.).
5. Fundamental Education: Definition and Programme. UNESCO. General Conference 2nd, Mexico City, 1947, 59 p. (In Eng.).
6. Callahan C. M., Hertberg-Davis H. L. Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge, 2017. 504 p. doi 10.4324/9781315639987. (In Eng.).
7. Heritage M., Jones B., Tobiason G., Chang S., Herman J. Fundamentals of Learning (FOL), available at: https://csaa.wested.org/resource/fundamentals-of-learning-fol/ (accessed 31.01.2024). (In Eng.).
8. Thalos M. Two Conceptions of Fundamentality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 2011. Vol. 41 (2). P. 151–177. (In Eng.).
9. Giddens E. Ustroenie obshchestva: Ocherk teorii strukturatsii [The Structure of Society: An Essay on the Theory of Structuration]. Moscow, Academic Project, 2005, 528 p. (In Russ.).
10. Pogozhina N. N., Savchenko I. A. Kholizm i reduktsionizm kak bazovye ponyatiya i metodologicheskie printsipy sotsial’no-filosofskikh issledovanii [Holism and Reductionism as Basic Concepts and Methodological Principles of Social and Philosophical Research]. Voprosy filosofii, 2019, nr 1, pp. 43–46. (In Russ.).
11. Raven M. J. Fundamentality without Foundations. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2016, vol. 93, nr 3, 25 p. doi 10.1111/phpr.12200 (In Eng.).
12. Delez Zh., Gvattari F. Anti-Edip: Kapitalizm i shizofreniya [Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia]. Ekaterinburg, U-Factoria, 2007, 672 p. (In Russ.).
13. Guattari F. The Three Ecologies. London, The Athlone Press, 2000, 174 p. (In Eng.).
14. Prigozhin I., Stengers I. Poryadok iz khaosa: Novyi dialog cheloveka s prirodoi [Order from Chaos: A new Dialogue Between Man and Nature]. Moscow, Progress, 1986, 432 p. (In Russ.).
15. Bauman Z. Tekuchaya sovremennost’ [Fluid Modernity]. St. Petersburg, Peter, 2008, 240 p. (In Russ.).
16. Sheler M. Formy znaniya i obrazovanie [Forms of K nowledge and Education]. In: Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works]. Moscow, Gnosis Publishing House, 1994, pp. 15–56. (In Russ.).
17. Niiniluoto I. Futures Studies: Science or Art? Futures, 2001, nr 33, pp. 371–377. (In Eng.).
18. Miller R. Being Without Existing: the Futures Community at a Turning Point? A Comment on Jay Ogilvy’s ‘‘Facing the Fold’’. Foresight, 2011, vol. 13, nr 4, pp. 24–34. (In Eng.).
19. Ogilvy J. Facing the Fold: from the Eclipse of Utopia to the Restoration of Hope. Foresight, 2011, vol. 13, nr 4, pp. 7–23. (In Eng.).
20. Dolzhenko O. Sotsiokul’turnye predposylki stanovleniya novoi paradigmy obrazovaniya [Sociocultural Prerequisites for the Formation of a New Paradigm of Education]. Alma Mater, 2000, nr 10, pp. 24–30. (In Russ.).
21. Bek U. Ot industrial’nogo obshchestva k obshchestvu riska [From Industrial Society to Risk Society]. THESIS, 1994, iss. 5, pp. 161–168. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Petrova G.I., Ovsyannikova Yu.N., Plyusnin L.V. The Fundamental Nature of Contemporary University Education: Approaches to Definition and Specifics of Content. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2024;28(2):7-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2024.02.011
Views:
263
Email this article 