Anthropology and Education: Issues from the Issues¹

Abstract

I am the first editor of AEQ to serve the two three-year terms allowed by the bylaws of the Council on Anthropology and Education. As I depart I offera few thoughts relating the last six years of AEQ to their context: the past and future of anthropology and education. The remarks are offeredas an opportunity for the reader to evaluate whatever my biases may have been. Beginning with a n overview o f our heritage from anthropology, I review the development of anthropology and education in order to relate what we have published to the core issues of the field. At the end I offer some thoughts on the issue of public policy. A N TH ROPOLOG Y, EDUCATION, TH € O R Y, HISTOR Y, POLICY. Overview and OriginsAnthropology is easily the most ambitious of the sciences concerned with human behavior. It has always been characterized by an extreme eclecticism both of subject and of approach to subject. After all, it includes within its domain four traditional fields of interest: physical anthropology, the study of the physical characteristics of Homo sapiens; archaeology, the study of the residues of the human past; linguistics, the study of ways of speaking in all human societies; and cultural anthropology, the study of contemporary (people alive today) human societies and behaviors. Each of these four fields i s composed of numerous schools and theoretical strands that challenge the new student as well as the experienced professional to keep track of the diversity with which one is faced.* What disciplines-in both senses of the term-this anthropological diversity is the orientation that people are part of one human species. Anthropology is devoted to its study. Wherever, whenever, and whatever humans have done or are doing i s grist for the anthropologist's mill. Given this breadth of subject matter, the diversity and eclecticism that characterize the discipline should not be unexpected.In addition to and concomitant with this diversity, anthropology has developed differently in different countries. Within cultural anthropology in the United States, anthropology has grown in ways different from those found in other countries, for example, England and France. American anthropology by comparison with those two traditions is a sprawling and, to some, bewildering accumulation of diverse theoretical themes as well as diverse subjects for study. On something as simple as the concept of culture, which most nonanthropologists in the social sciences associate with anthropology, there is such diversity that some anthropologists do not even use the term. Books could be and have been written (see Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952) simply on an inventory of the various definitions of culture. Space does not allow a complete review here. Culture is of course an abstraction. As distinct from a group of people, you cannot see "culture" any more than you can see

Η Επαγγελματική Εξέλιξη Των Εκπαιδευτικών Της Πρωτοβάθμιας Εκπαίδευσης Στο Πλαίσιο Της Παιδαγωγικής Ανάπτυξης Ενός Σύγχρονου Σχολείου

“…(Huberman, 1995, στο Day, 2003 Βεβαίως, η πορεία των εκπαιδευτικών δια μέσω των παραπάνω φάσεων επαγγελματικής σταδιοδρομίας είναι ενδεικτική και όχι γραμμική. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι δεν περνούν όλοι από όλες τις προαναφερθείσες φάσεις, ότι ίσως δεν ολοκληρώνουν το πέρασμα από κάθε φάση και ότι ο ρυθμός μεταβίβασης από φάση σε φάση ποικίλει (Day, 2003 (Harrington, 1982). Έχει τις βάσεις του στη Θετικιστική Παιδαγωγική και θεωρεί την εκπαιδευτική πράξη ως μια σκόπιμη και μεθοδευμένη διαδικασία που απαιτεί την κατοχή οργανωτικών-διδακτικών δεξιοτήτων (Ματσαγγούρας, 2002 (Hargreaves, 1995).…”

“…υποκεφ. 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.4, 6.2 (Harrington, 1982), το ερμηνευτικό-στοχαστικό (Hargreaves, 1995) και το στοχαστικό-κριτικό μοντέλο (Brookfield, 1995), το μοντέλο Σχεδιασμού της Επαγγελματικής Ανάπτυξης (Day & Penigton, 1993), το μοντέλο Κατάρτισης (Little, 1994Kelly & McDiarmid, 2002, το μοντέλο Παροχής Πιστοποίησης (Henderson, 2002, το μοντέλο Ελλείμματος (Rhodes & Beneicke, 2003) το μοντέλο Κλιμάκωσης (Marker, 1999Day, 2003, το μοντέλο Προτύπων (Beyer, 2002), το μοντέλο Καθοδήγησης (Rhodes & Beneicke, 2002), το μοντέλο των Κοινοτήτων Πρακτικής (Wenger, 1998), το μοντέλο της Έρευνας Δράσης (Day, 2003Weiner, 2002Burbank & Kauchack, 2003 και το Μετασχηματικό μοντέλο (Hoban, 2002. (Feimean-Nemser, 1990Korthagen & Wubels, 1995˙Elliot, 1993˙Day, 2003˙Davis & Heller, 2003˙ Fullan, 2014.…”

“…Επίσης, οι έρευνες που αναζητούν τα χαρακτηριστικά αποτελεσματικότητας και ποιότητας στα σχολεία της χώρας μας (Φρυδά, Βλάχος & Δαγκλής 2010 Κουτούβελα, 2015˙ Γεωργίου, 2015) (Joyce & Showers, 1980, 2002˙Clickman, 1985,˙ Pajak, 2000Costa & Garmston 1986Harrington, 1982Hargreaves, 1995Brookfield, 1995Day & Penigton, 1993Little, 1994Kelly & McDiarmid, 2002Henderson, 2002Rhodes & Beneicke, 2003Marker, 1999Day, 2003Beyer, 2002Rhodes & Beneicke, 2002Wenger, 1998Weiner, 2002Burbank & Kauchack, 2003Hoban, 2002 αλλά και τη θεωρητική διερεύνηση των παραγόντων που συμβάλλουν στην εξέταση των παραγόντων της παιδαγωγικής ανάπτυξης του σχολείου (βλ. υποκ.…”