he offers the following concepts:
• The “spaceship earth,” i.e., a concept that assumes that humanity has a moral obligation towards the preservation of the earth,
• The “fallen angel,” i.e., the recognition that people make mistakes, therefore claims of certainty and faith in science are not suitable as standards and guidance for the society and the lives of individuals,
• The “American experiment,” i.e., the idea that human rights and the principle of continuing discussion are suitable for regulating social cooperation,
• The “law of diversity,” i.e., the idea that from linguistic, religious, cultural differences reciprocal stimulation, growth and strength can emerge.
These four concepts can be understood in the deepest sense, as humanistic concepts because they have no normative requirements and do not prompt individuals to adopt values, rather they create a framework, within which the validity of guidelines can be discussed and negotiated. At the same time, these concepts prove to be insightful concepts as they question superficial success and the superficial forces of technological and market standards. Certainly, in agreement with Erich Fromm - not the criteria of “having,” but that of “being” is brought into focus. In this sense, the “new gods” outlined by Postman prove to be a “productive orientation” in the sense of Fromm’s writings, because they reflect the expression of logical thinking, the love of life (biophilia), and human solidarity (cf. Fromm, 1976).
In order for adolescents to adopt such productive orientations and allow them to personally develop a lasting basis orientation and endow life with meaning, it is necessary to strengthen their own self-respect. The reason for this approach to one's own self-esteem is that a person, who estimates the value of his own personality low, will barely be in a position to approach others or to participate in a social environment as an understanding person who promotes cooperation. The ability “to endow life with meaning” or a value orientation begins with the promotion of self-esteem. Parents, educators, and teachers can learn to promote self-esteem and create an important basis for successful personality development and self-directed, lifelong learning in the children and adolescents under their care.
Contemplating the possibilities of specifically developing this self-respect in classrooms or in teaching-learning contexts, three basic approaches can be identified:
• The experience of being treated respectfully,
• The experience of self-efficacy,
• The promotion of self-image.
Assisted learning is based on the self-esteem and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997) of the subject. Only those who can respect themselves and have experienced themselves as self-effective dare to try something. And only those who have the self-confidence to try can also have confidence and trust in others and also treat them with respect.
These three aspects reflect the fact that individual self-respect is to a large degree dependent on how respectfully he is treated and how effective he experiences himself to be within the organization of his social and physical environment. To ensure young people have the chance to develop an experience of self-efficacy, it is important to avoid constant threats and humiliations; teachers and parents must approach their students to convey real expectations not only as an element of “conducting” the teaching process; and, to avoid ostracism and complicated and even incomprehensible and ambiguous expressions. It is also important that teachers intervene when they notice others being treated disparagingly and insensitively. Similarly, through targeted activities, it is essential to give individuals the experience that they are important.
From these lines of argument, the outline of a concept of assisted learning can be discerned. It includes:
• Valuing (own experiences),
• Linking aids (between old and new), and
• Openness of effect
The effects of educational interventions are not binding or even sustainable. This was never the case. Even in times when it was more possible to instill fear and terror into systems, the “stubbornness” of the subjects could never be completely subdued. People have always learned “against the grain”, and the subjects have always learned differently and more than was taught. The systemic-constructivist pedagogy proceeds from that which has always worked: “If it is true that systems
cannot be developed, but rather they can only develop themselves, why are these facts not taken to some extent as the basis for business?” By asking and thinking in this manner, the focus is more on the aspect of assisting (enabling) and it diverges away from the engineering mentality of manufacturing and production output.
In this way, a different mindset of observation, assessment, and acting can emerge, which takes the uncertainty of the effect of education into account. Training, education, and learning follow the inner logic of the subject. Through monitoring, it is possible to provide breathing space and indirect encouragement, but not really “intervene” (in the technical sense of the word). Systemic- constructivist pedagogy is therefore a non-interventionist pedagogy. It promotes reflexivity in pedagogical activities, but does not directly initiate it. As such it is an ethical pedagogy, which essentially positions itself in the subsidiary role. This means that the self-determination and self-organization of systems will achieve primacy – if for no other reason than simply because it is already so.
With such questioning, a systemic-constructivist approach to Training and education is closely related to the educational progressivism philosophy (cf. Dewey 1916; 1925, Rogers 1969). The educational progressivism was “systemic” in the sense that it examined the conditions that make self-control possible, with the knowledge that it is in self-control alone that the logic of the other can become apparent. Many of the progressive authors were already aware of the ineffectiveness of linear schooling models and they fundamentally questioned the dominant pedagogic theory of the need to educate people. This is especially valid for the didactic version of this thesis, which says, “teaching” is an absolute prerequisite for “learning”. This thesis is still present - albeit in a modified and weakened form – in the didactic debates of this day. It was only very gradually that the view began to widen to include the autodidactic forms of learning and it became evident that lifelong learning is necessarily a self-directed activity, which can be achieved in diverse contexts and not in pre-existing curricula and institutionalized processes.
However, the systemic-constructivist pedagogy is more than just an updated edition of educational progressivism concepts. It builds more on the cognitive psychological insights into the emergent characteristics of thinking, feeling and acting by the subject and does not succumb to the illusion of self-determination of open education. Systemic-constructivist pedagogy attempts rather to explain the theory that intervention is possible, but uncertain in its effects (by Glasersfeld 1987). It is ultimately concerned with redefining educational interaction and approaching it from the dynamics of the target system. Training, education, and learning occur as a co-evolution of two linked systems, in which both can only contribute what they have available. The success of this co-evolution is only “guaranteed” through the facilitation of connected abilities, but not by insistent linearity (e.g. in the sense of standardization).
A systemic-constructivist pedagogy that addresses this issue is essentially the pedagogy of assisted learning. It supports the development of subjectivity and competency; combines a variety of acquisition opportunities; and assists, advises, and supports the movement of the learner. It's not about if-then relationships, but about options of growth and acquisition. People develop from within, but in the process, they require opportunities of stimulation, questioning, and searching. However, not everyone needs the same things.
