Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Upbringing in modern theoretical concepts is becoming more anthropologically oriented (Slobotcikov & Isajev, 2000). Childhood has come to be considered a psycho-socio-cultural category (Baacke, 1999; Abramenkova, 2008), because a person’s worldview is a synchronised, subjective-emotional construct that has an active constructive beginning in childhood, when the child starts forming relationships with the surrounding world as a set of definite expectations and requirements (Abramenkova, 2008). A new, different understanding of the child—the child as an actor—appears in the context of postmodernist social sciences discourse in the 1990s (Rubene & Dinka, 2016). This raises the question of children’s active participation in their own personal development process, and the acceptance of children’s involvement by the adults in their lives. Children as actors are thinking individuals, able to interpret and act creatively in the social world and be innovative when participating in the reproduction of culture. They do not only simply reproduce their social environment but interiorise it, becoming active subjects in constructing their personal lives. The concept of the child as an actor transforms the aim of upbringing from obedience to the promotion of children’s action (Rubene & Dinka, 2016) in a way that can be realised in symmetric, respectful relations that are full of trust and encourage communication. The aim of modern upbringing, in other words, is to prepare the child to become a socially active agent, capable of independent decision making, responsibility, and problem solving. Naturally, the innovative processes of education also raise the issue of changes in the pedagogical environment corresponding to the conditions of participatory democracy. In this regard, the environment of upbringing is an especially important social condition that consists of cooperation, games, and a subjective environment (Pavlova, 2007, p. 4). If it were possible to prove that society is on the side of promoting child development, then we should not worry about the development of today’s children, yet we cannot answer this question unequivocally positively (Liegle, 2006, p. 45). The problem highlighted places the everyday pedagogical process at the centre of attention (Liegle, 2006, p. 7). Pedagogical strategy is fundamental to the organization of the educational environment, which rests on relations that are based on faithfulness. In order for faithfulness-based relations, not only the compilation of knowledge, to develop in practice, it is important to make the connection between individual development and the dimensions of social factors where the quality is defined both by the experience of things and the experience of subjective acquisition of social situations (Schäfer, 2005, p. 28). The strategic management of this approach is based on the understanding of communication forms and content that is the core of healthy development. The aim of the present article, therefore, is to analyse and summarise research on the structure of everyday pedagogical support, in order to develop it as a theoretical construct and to verify it in vivo. The situation described reveals the problem which forms the basis for the following research:
- 1.
Which components form the content of the everyday pedagogical support?
- 2.
Which of the components identified in theory are reflected in everyday pedagogical process, and what is their impact on the formation of a child’s personality?
In order to explore the characteristics of everyday pedagogical support, this study seeks to identify how the criteria of everyday pedagogical support singled out by theorists are reflected in children’s interviews.