INNOVATION IN EDUCATION: THE DIALECTICS OF QUALITATIVE CHANGE

Abstract

Summary. The purpose of the work. The article analyzes innovations in education through the prism of the dialectic of quantitative and qualitative change in order to determine the conditions under which such innovations can bring education to a new, higher level, resolving the contradictions that have accumulated in it. Methodology. The means to reach the set goal is dialectics as logic and theory of cognition, in particular, the law of mutual transition of qualitative and quantitative changes, and also logic of distinction of spheres of being, essence and concept. Scientific novelty. For the first time in the domestic philosophical and pedagogical literature, the nature of educational innovations is analyzed in the context of an adequate understanding of the relationship between quantitative and qualitative changes, thus making clear the conditions for a gradual break and the transition to a new degree. Innovative changes in themselves belong to the sphere of existing existence, where there is only a ‘transition”. At the level of essence, reflection prevails as the appearance of one in another, the presence of one in another, the internal connection. Development as such (including the development of education) is carried out at the level of “concept” as a free unity of being and essence. Thus, it is argued that innovation processes, taken in the abstract, do not in themselves lead to essential transformations, but educational innovations can contribute to them, as well as hinder them. Therefore, the point is not to implement various innovations, but to resolve existing contradictions. Conclusions. Adequate theoretical understanding of the dialectic of qualitative and quantitative changes can guide pedagogical thinking in the search for such innovations that lead to the resolution of contradictions that have accumulated in the domestic education system. The pursuit of “novelty”, “innovative technologies” does not contribute to the recovery of education, but can significantly mislead both the real participants in the educational process and officials who carry out management activities in this area.