{"title":"Is the Mission of Teaching Authoritarian?","authors":"O. Kayumov","doi":"10.1080/10609393.2019.1945842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Modern dictionaries define “authoritarian” (which traces back to the French “autoritaire” meaning “imperious”) as something characterized by the unquestioning submission to power. Scholars in education borrowed this term from social psychology, where it was used to analyze types of leadership in terms of how they influence group dynamics. Kurt Lewin (1939) singled out three styles of social group leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and lax. 1 Subsequently, this classification was used in pedagogical textbooks to describe how principals interacted with school faculty. Since the early 1990s, it has for some reason come to characterize the relationships that teachers have with their students, while supplanting the previous (very substantial and natural) classification of styles of pedagogical communication. The purpose of the article is to understand the reasons why these terms evolved in such a strange way, to a situation where traditional pedagogy began to be conceived of as authoritarian and was contrasted to a hypothetical “pedagogy of support.” 2","PeriodicalId":53668,"journal":{"name":"Russian Education and Society","volume":"61 1","pages":"217 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian Education and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10609393.2019.1945842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Modern dictionaries define “authoritarian” (which traces back to the French “autoritaire” meaning “imperious”) as something characterized by the unquestioning submission to power. Scholars in education borrowed this term from social psychology, where it was used to analyze types of leadership in terms of how they influence group dynamics. Kurt Lewin (1939) singled out three styles of social group leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and lax. 1 Subsequently, this classification was used in pedagogical textbooks to describe how principals interacted with school faculty. Since the early 1990s, it has for some reason come to characterize the relationships that teachers have with their students, while supplanting the previous (very substantial and natural) classification of styles of pedagogical communication. The purpose of the article is to understand the reasons why these terms evolved in such a strange way, to a situation where traditional pedagogy began to be conceived of as authoritarian and was contrasted to a hypothetical “pedagogy of support.” 2
期刊介绍：
The editor of Russian Education and Society selects material for translation from the Russian-language professional literature on education and socialization. The materials surveyed cover preschool, primary, secondary, vocational, and higher education; curricula and methods; and socialization issues related to family life, ethnic and religious identity formation, youth culture, addiction and other behavioral and health problems; professional training and employment. The scope of the journal extends beyond Russia proper to provide coverage of all the former Soviet states as well as international educational issues.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
