Typology of “Displased criticism” in scientific pedagogical dialogues as a methodological phenomenon

   Introduction.  Modern dialogue in the sciences of education plays an extremely important role as a tool for making scientifically based decisions, as a means of evaluating the productivity of innovations proposed by various authors. However, the practice of modern scientific discussions in pedagogy fixes a lot of problems. The organisation of dialogues, which are correct from the point of view of logic and content, and participants carefully listen to their partners and adequately perceive and analyse the proposed solutions to the author’s intentions, is a rather serious problem. Nevertheless, the analysis of the literature on the research topic, the analysis of “live” dialogues in the field of education shows that the authors and participants often violate the rules of logically and meaningfully correct discourse. The author’s criticism of predecessors presented in many dialogues suffers from many shortcomings, which can be briefly summarised as “displaced criticism” – this means shifting the focus of criticism from real errors and inconsistencies to minor flaws and carelessness. Therefore, the authors of the present research considered it necessary to carry out methodological “intervention” in the problem of correct dialogue in pedagogy.

   These circumstances, supported by the findings of European education researchers, determine the relevance of the chosen topic.

   Aim. The current research aims to: a) construct and substantiate the typology of fragments of “biased criticism”, their thesis display; b) display “displaced criticism” as a methodological negative and a stimulus for the research reflective activity of the pedagogical scientific community.

   Methodology and research methods. The research methods involved the analysis of records of scientific dialogues and scientific texts for the content and logical correctness of the justifications for pedagogical conclusions and their criticism; construction and substantiation of the typology of the components of the field under study; reflection of the result and identification of promising vectors for the development of the designated topic.

   Results. The results of the study are a typology of fragments of “displaced criticism”, including: a) uncritical isolation of fragments of the reviewed text (or oral dialogue) – regardless of how they were presented by the criticised author himself/herself; b) attribution to the author of incorrect conclusions that he/she did not put forward; c) criticism of illusory consequences from the statements of the author of the text or the participant in the dialogue; d) criticism that clearly demonstrates the substantive ignorance of the participant in the dialogue; e) criticism with inextricably linked elements, which are artificially isolated and there is a distorted form of connection between the elements; f) criticism that deliberately focuses the reader’s attention on minor errors in the text or fragment of the dialogue and misses significant errors. In addition to the justified typology, “displaced criticism” is presented in the format of a methodological negative (1), and the process of its identification as an incentive for scrupulous research activities in pedagogy (2).

   Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty consists in proposing and substantiating the typology of methodologically incorrect fragments of “displaced criticism” in pedagogical oral and textual dialogues, as well as in positioning the phenomenon under study as a methodological negative and an incentive for research reflective activity in scientific pedagogy.

   Practical significance. The practical significance of the results lies in finding such forms of displaying criticism towards the participants in the dialogues, towards the texts of predecessors, which must be avoided in every possible way, participating in scientific discussions, criticising the results obtained by the authors of articles and books.

1. Koskinen H. J. Antecedent recognition: Some problematic educational implications of the very notion // Journal of Philosophy of Education. 2018. № 52 (1). P. 178–190. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9752.12276

2. Pritchard D. Epistemic virtue and the epistemology of education // Journal of Philosophy of Education. 2013. № 47 (2). P. 236–247. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315919359_Epistemic_Virtue_and_the_Epistemology_of_Education

3. Kallio H., Virta K., Kallio M. Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness // International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018. Vol. 7, № 2. P. 94–122. DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2018.2789

4. Ennis R. H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision // Topoi. 2018. Vol. 37, № 1. P. 165–184. DOI: 10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

5. Zenker F. Introduction: reasoning, argumentation, and critical thinking instruction // Topoi. 2018. Vol. 37, № 1. P. 91–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11245-016-9416-x

6. Snaza N. Aleatory entanglements: (Post)humanism, hospitality and attunement – A response to Hugo Letiche // Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2018. Vol. 14. P. 256–272. DOI: 10.1080/15505170.2017.1398700

7. Letiche H. Bewildering pedagogy // Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2017. Vol. 14. P. 236–255. DOI: 10.1080/15505170.2017.1335662

8. Billig Sh. H., Waterman A. S. Studying service-learning: Innovations in education research methodology. London: Routledge, 2014. 276 p. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234013750_Studying_Service_Learning_Innovations_in_Education_Research_Methodology (date of access: 20/02/2023).

9. Shirish T. S. Research methodology in education. Lulu Publication. USA, 2013. 122 p.

10. Hanan A. A. What is critical about critical pedagogy? Conflicting conceptions of criticism in the curriculum // Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2016. Vol. 50 (10). P. 903–916. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1228519

11. Alexander P. A. Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: Challenges of conceptualization, complexity, and competence // Educational Psychologist. 2017. Vol. 25, № 4. P. 307–314. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1350181

12. Barczyński B. J., Kalina R. M. Science of martial arts – example of the dilemma in classifying new interdisciplinary sciences in the global systems of the science evaluation and the social consequences of courageous decisions // Procedia Manufacturing. 2015. Vol. 3. P. 1203–1210. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.199

13. Baxter Magolda M. B. Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection // Educational Psychologist. 2004. Vol. 39, № 1. P. 31–42. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4

14. Leś T. The research potential of educational theory: On the specific characteristics of the issues of education // Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017. Vol. 49, № 14. P. 1428–1440. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1313716

15. Koivuniemi M., Järvenoja H., Järvelä S. Teacher education students’ strategic activities in challenging collaborative learning situations // Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2018. Vol. 19. P. 109–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.002

16. Rodek V. Learning and its effectiveness in students’ self-reflection // The New Educational Review. 2019. Vol. 55. P. 112–120. DOI: 10.15804/tner.2019.55.1.09

17. Kornienko A. A. The concept of knowledge society in the ontology of modern society // Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015. Vol. 166. P. 378–386. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.540

18. Rapanta C. Argumentation as critically oriented pedagogical dialogue // Informal Logic. 2019. Vol. 39, № 1. P. 1–31. DOI: 10.22329/il.v39i1.5116

19. Rapanta C. Teaching as abductive reasoning: The role of argumentation // Informal Logic. 2018. Vol. 38, № 2. P. 293–311. DOI: 10.22329/il.v38i2.4849

20. Kim M.-Y., Wilkinson I. A. G. What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk // Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2019. Vol. 21. P. 70–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003

21. Coney C. L. Critical thinking in its contexts and in itself // Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2014. Vol. 47, № 5. P. 515–528. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2014.883963

22. Brezinka W. Philosophy of educational knowledge: An introduction to the foundations of science of education, philosophy of education and practical pedagogics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 303 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-2586-4

23. Gardiner G. Teleologies and the methodology of epistemology. Epistemic evaluation: Purposeful epistemology // Oxford University Press. 2015. P. 31–45. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3242372 (date of access: 25. 03. 2023).

24. Chekour M., Laafou M., Janati-Idrissi R. What are the adequate pedagogical approaches for teaching scientific disciplines? Physics as a case study // Journal of Educational and Social Research. 2018. Vol. 8, № 2. P. 141–148. DOI: 10.2478/jesr-2018-0025

25. Rapanta C., Macagno F. Evaluation and promotion of argumentative reasoning among university students: The case of academic writing // Revista Lusofona de Educacao. 2019. Vol. 45. P. 125–142. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338698575_Evaluation_and_Promotion_of_Argumentative_Reasoning_Among_University_Students_The_Case_of_Academic_Writing

26. Skidmore D., Murakami K. Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Multilingual Matters, 2016. 289 p.

27. Rose D. Analysing pedagogic discourse: an approach from genre and register // Functional Linguist. 2014. Vol. 1 (11). DOI: 10.1186/s40554-014-0011-4

28. A dialogue about educational dialogue: Reflections on the field and the work of the Cambridge Educational Dialogue Research (CEDiR). Working Paper Series, 2018. 51 p. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/37916282/A_Dialogue_About_Educational_Dialogue_Reflections_on_the_Field_and_the_Work_of_The_Cambridge_Educational_Dialogue_Research_CEDiR_Group (date of access: 25. 03. 2023).

29. Tariqah A. Nuriddin. Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom by bell hooks // Teaching Sociology. 2012. № 40 (2). P. 182–183. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261980259_Teaching_Critical_Thinking_Practical_Wisdom_by_bell_hooks

30. Irawan N., Valentina T. F. The language of argumentation: A book review // Journal of Language and Education. 2021. Vol. 7 (2). P. 274–276. DOI: 10.17323/jle.2021.12538

31. The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. London: Routledge, 2019. 714 p. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780429441677/rout-ledge-international-handbook-research-dialogic-education-neil-mercer-rupert-wegerif-louis-major (date of access: 20. 03. 2023).

32. Novikov A. M. Osnovaniya pedagogiki = Foundation of pedagogy. Moscow: Publishing House Egves; 2010. 208 p. (In Russ.)

33. Perminova L. M. Axiological outline of didactics. Gumanitarnaya nauka i obrazovanie = The Humanities and Education. 2022; Vol. 13 № 4 (52): 80–89. Available from: https://mordgpi.ru/upload/iblock/2d8/Tom-13_-_4-_oktyabr_dekabr_.pdf (In Russ.)

34. Korzhuev A. V., Ikrennikova Yu. B., Kuliev Z. A., Ryazanjva E. L., Shadriva E. L. Pedagogy in the constellation of sciences: Methodological dialogue and “knowledge transfer”. Voprosy Filosofii = Questions of Philosophy. 2022; 6: 75–86. DOI: 10.21146/0042-8744-2022-6-75-86 (In Russ.)

35. Korotov V. M. Vospityvayushcheye obucheniye = Educational training. Moscow: Publishing House Prosveshcheniye; 1980. 191 p. (In Russ.)

36. Shchedrovitskiy G. P. Printsipy i obshchaya skhema metodologicheskoy organizatsii sistemno-strukturnykh issledovaniy. Izbrannyye trudy = Principles and general scheme of methodological organization of system-structural research. Selected works. Moscow: Publishing House Shk.Kul’t.Polit; 1995. 800 p. (In Russ.)

37. Shchedrovitskiy G. P. Myshleniye, ponimaniye, refleksiya = Thinking, understanding, reflection. Moscow: Publishing House MMK Heritage; 2005. 198 p. (In Russ.)

38. Aleksandrova E. A., Asadullin R. M, Berezhnova E. V., Boguslavskiy M. V., Bobryshov S. V., Korshunova N. L., Ryndak V. G. Metodologiya pedagogiki = Methodology of pedagogical sciences=. Moscow: Publishing House INFRA-M; 2020. 296 p. (In Russ.)

39. Bordovslaya N. V. Dialektika pedagogicheskogo issledovaniya = Dialectics of pedagogical research. Moscow: Publishing House Kino-Rus; 2016. 511 p. (In Russ.)