پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 911 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,489 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,117,704 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,568,814 |
علم تحول انسان از منظر فرانظریه | ||
| اندیشه های نوین تربیتی | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 19، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 67، فروردین 1402، صفحه 49-69 اصل مقاله (683.42 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مروری | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jontoe.2022.34662.3253 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| راضیه شیخ الاسلامی* 1؛ سید عابد علوی2 | ||
| 1دانشیار ، گروه روانشناسی تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی ، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری گروه روانشناسی تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| علم تحول انسان محدود به بیان فرضیه، نظریهپردازی و بررسی تجربی نیست، بلکه فرانظریههای این علم تفسیر نتایج و کاربردهای تربیتی را نیز تحت تأثیر قرار میدهند. هدف این مقاله بررسی علم تحول انسان در پرتو فرانظریههای این علم بود. تناسب بین فرانظریهها و نظریهها )که مبنای سیاستگذاریهای تعلیم و تربیت و کاربردهای آموزشی هستند(، از ضروریات تحول بهینۀ انسان است. از این رو در این مقاله با استفاده از روش توصیفی تحلیلی، انواع فرانظریههای علم تحول انسان شامل فرانظریۀ دو نیمهسازی دکارتی و فرانظریۀ فرایندی ـ رابطهای مورد واکاوی قرار گرفته است. فرانظریۀ دونیمهسازی دکارتی، جهان هستی را در قالب قطبهای دوگانۀ جمعپذیر ترسیم میکند، در حالیکه فرانظریۀ فرایند_ رابطهای، جهان هستی را بهعنوان سیستمی از روابط متقابل کل و جزء، پویا و در حال تغییر ترسیم میکند. در این فرانظریۀ قطبها در یکدیگر رسوخ کرده و هر قطب در عین حال که دیگری را تعریف میکند، خود نیز بهوسیله دیگری تعریف میشود. همچنین، کل یک سیستم سازمانیافته از بخشهاست، بهنحوی که هربخش به وسیلۀ ارتباطش با دیگر بخشها و با کل تعریف میشود. بنابراین، کل بزرگتر از جمع بخشهایش نیست، بلکه از آن متفاوت است. ناکامی فرانظریة دونیمهسازی دکارتی در تشریح پیشرفتهای جدید در علم تحول انسان، نفوذ 300 ساله این فرانظریه را کاهش داده و فرانظریۀ فرایندی ـ رابطهای در حال جایگزینی با آن است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| جهانبینی؛ فرانظریههای تحول انسان؛ فرانظریۀ دونیمهسازی دکارتی؛ فرانظریۀ فرایندی ـ رابطهای؛ علم تحول انسان | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Human Developmental Science in the Perspective of Metatheory | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Razieh Sheikholeslami1؛ Seyed Abed Alavi2 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Educational Psychology Department, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shiraz University, Iran | ||
| 2PhD Student, Educational Psychology Department, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shiraz University, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Human developmental science is not limited to expressing hypotheses, theorizing and empretical investigation. Metatheories of this science, also, affect result interpretation, and educational applications. The study aimed to examine human developmental science in the light of its existing metatheories. Proportion between metatheories and theories which is the basis for educational policies and instructional applications is one of the requirements for optimal human development. Thus, we used descriptive-analytical method to explain different kinds of human developmental metatheories including split metatheory and process-relational metatheory. Split metatheory depicts the world as aggregates of dichotomous polarities, but process-relational metatheory depicts the world as systems of dynamic, changing and reciprocal part-whole relations. In process-relational metatheory, polarities interpenetrate each other and each pole defines and is defined by the other. Moreover, within this metatheory, the whole is an organized system of parts; each part is defined by its relations to other parts and to the whole. Thus, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, but it is different from them. New advancements in developmental science reduced the 300-year-old influence of this metatheory through Cartesian split anomalies, and replaced it with process-relational metatheory. The scope of human development has gone beyond developmental psychology and has changed into developmental science. Human developmental science seeks to describe, explain, and optimize (Lerner and Lerner, 2019; Lerner et al., 2013) intraindividual changes and interpersonal differences throughout life span (Lerner and Kallina, 2013) to understand and explain the developmental processes and adaptive changes (Overton, 2018; Lerner, 2012). Contemporary developmental scientists place human development on individuals’ bidirectional relations with their context (Lerner et al., 2018). Developmental science focuses on the study of regular and continuous changes in these relations and on the integration and differentiation of the multiple characteristics of individuals at multiple levels (Brunfenbrunner and Morris, 2006; Overton, 2013). To help avoid conceptual ambiguities and adopt inappropriate methods (Overton, 2015), scientific discourse has been used in developmental research. Worldviews are fundamental metatheories that guide the study of human development and influence the interpretations of these studies. Metatheories the foundation of developmental science ground, constrain, and sustain theoretical and observational levels of concepts (Overton, 2014a). Given the importance of human development, it should be asked what its metatheories and their features are. Methodology This study used descriptive-analytical method to inspect into the sources for the metatheories of human development. This method first examines the essence of the phenomenon, and compiles its features. The researcher should then go beyond this information, and investigate their whyness, howness and comparison. In fact, in this method, the researcher achieves a deep understanding of a phenomenon (Sebunje, 2021; Lob et al., 2017). We collected the documents and sources related to metatheories of human development. Then we extracted the definitions and described the characteristics of metatheories, and compared and analyzed their ontological, epistemological and anthropological bases Results Human developmental science has two metatheories: the Cartesian split and process-relational metatheories. In Cartesian worldview, the basic phenomena of the world are divided into dual independent elements or “either/or” propositions. Its principles are splitting, foundationalism, atomism, and the linear association. In process-relational metatheory, the world is a dynamic and changing system of relations of whole and parts, which occurs through mutually regulative relations between the organism and its context of life (Lerner, 2012). In the relational metatheory, the living organism is described as an inherently active, self-creating, self-organizing, and self-regulating system, relatively plastic and with a complex nonlinear adaptive system that grows through the activities and actions internalized by the system itself in a physical socio-historical and active world. Through positive and negative feedback loops created by the system’s organized actions, this growth leads to an increase in the differentiation, and complexity of the system, which is directed towards adaptive ends. Relational ontology considers reality based on the principles of process, activity, dialectical change, formation, and organization. Relational epistemology is relatively inclusive and includes the knower and knowledge as equal, indissociable, and complementary processes in the construction and acquisition of knowledge. Of course, this inclusion can be understood in relation to exclusion. In other words, none of them makes sense without the other. At the heart of the process-relational metatheory is the concept of holism. Holism, refer to objects and events are identified and derive from the relational context in which they are embedded. In this relational context, the components are not separate from one another, but they are the organizers of the components. The whole also possesses system properties that are different from the properties of each component and not larger than the sum of the components, but distinct from them (Overton & Müller, 2013). The epistemological principles of this metatheory are The Identity of Opposites, The Opposites of Identity, and The Synthesis of Wholes. Table 1 compares the epistemological, ontological and anthropological principles of these two metatheories. Discussion and conclusion Having a worldview as the most general metatheory and its conformity with developmental theories are essential for educational activities and should be addressed by policymakers. Failure to have a certain worldview, and more importantly mismatch between worldviews and theories of human development create conceptual confusion. As these theories form the basis of the educational policies, they generate confusions in the applied realm, as well. The confusion increases to the point that we encounter some educated individuals that are confused about themselves, their purposes, and their path of life. The educational implications of this study are the following: promoting harmony between the monotheistic worldview and educational practices to be applied in the educational system, purposeful planning and designing positive human development according to their plasticity in the context of life focusing on the systemic nature of human development and being influenced when changing programs. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Cartesian split metatheory, Developmental science, Human developmental metatheories, Process-relational metatheory, Worldview | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Bickhard, M, H. (2008). Issues process metaphysics. Ecological Psychology, 20(3), 252-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10407410802189273 Carpendale, J. M., Atwood, S., & Kettner, V. (2013). Meaning and mind from the perspective of dualist versus relational worldviews & I: Implication for the development of pointing gestures. Human Development, 56(6), 381–400. Javidi Kalate Jafarabadi, T., & Aali, M. (2010). Anthropological foundations of postmodernism and its educational implications. Research Journal of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, 23, 170-183. (Text in Persian) Lerner, R. M. (2012). Developmental Science: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Developmental Science, 6(1-2), 29–36. Lerner, R. M., Agans, A. P., DeSouza, L. M., & Gasca, S. (2013). Describing, explaining, and optimizing within-individual change across the life span: A relational developmental systems perspective. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 179-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032931 Lerner, R. M., & Benson, J. B. (2013). Introduction: Embodiment and epigenesis: A view of the issues, In R, M, Lerner & J, B, Benson (Eds.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 44, 1–20. Lerner, R. M., Brindis, C. D., Batanova, M., & Blum, R. Wm. (2018). Adolescent health development: A relational developmental systems perspective, In N, Halfon., C. B, Forrest., R. M, Lerner., & E. M, Faustman (Eds.), Handbook of life course health development, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_27 Lerner, R. M., Callina, K. S. (2013). Relational developmental systems theories and the ecological validity of experimental designs, Human Development, 56 (6), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357179 Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2019). The development of a person: A relational developmental systems perspective. In D. P. McAdams, R. L. Shiner, & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 59–75). The Guilford Press. Loab, S., Dynarski, S., McFarland, D., Morris, P., Reardon, S., & Reber, S. (2017). Descriptive analysis in education: A guide for researches. (NCEE 2017–4023). Washington, DC: U.S. Department Overton, W. F. (2003). Development across the life span, In I, B. Weiner., R, M. Lerner., M, A. Easterbrooks., & J, Mistry (Eds), Handbook of psychology, v6: Developmental psychology (pp, 13-42), John Willey & Sons, Inc. Overton, W. F. (2004). Embodied development: Ending the nativism-empiricism debate, In Garcia Coll., C, Bearer, E, & Lerner, R (Eds), Nature and nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development, (pp, 201-223), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Overton, W. F. (2007). A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism-contexualism. Human Development, 50, 154-159. Overton, W. F. (2010). Life-span development: Concepts and issues, In R, M, Lerner., & W, F, Overton (Ed.), Cognition, biology, and methods across the lifespan, Volume 1 of the handbook of life-span development (pp, 1–29). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd001001 Overton, W. F. (2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational- developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17(2), 94-107. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10888691.2013.778717 Overton, W. F. (2014a). The process-relational paradigm and relationa - developmental-systems metamodel as context. Research in Human Development, 11)4(, 323-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2014.971549 Overton, W. F. (2014b). relational developmental Systems Overton, W. F. (2015). Processes, relations, and relational-developmental-systems, In W, F, Overton, P, C, M, Molenaar, & R, M, Lerner (Eds,), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method, Chapter 2 (p. 1–54), John Wiley & Sons Inc. Overton, W. F. (2018). Developmental science: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In A. S. Dick & U Mueller (Eds.). Advancing Developmental science: Philosophy, theory and method (pp. 248-255). New York, N.Y.: Routledge. Overton, W. F., & Mueller, U. (2013). Metatheories, theories and concepts in the study of development, In I, B. Weiner., R, M. Lerner., M, A. Easterbrooks., & J, Mistry (Eds), Handbook of psychology, v6: Developmental psychology (pp, 20-53), John Willey & Sons, Inc. Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Sebunje, W. (2021). Research techniques. https://images.agri-profocus.nl/upload/post/RESEARCH_TECHNIQUES11442910501. pdf, 30/12/2021 Witherington, D. C. (2007). The dynamic systems approach as metatheory for developmental psychology. Human Development, 50 (2-3), 127–153. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1159/000100943 Witherington, D. C., Overton, W. F., Lickliter, R., Marshall, P. J., & Narvaez, D. (2018). Metatheory and the primacy of conceptual analysis in developmental science. Human Development, 61(3), 181–198. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1159/000490160 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 356 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 192 |
||
