Lietuvos mokyklos ateitys klaidžiojant antropocene. Scenarijų studija

• Duoblienė, Lilija
• Vaitekaitis, Jogaila
• Kontrimienė, Simona
• Garbauskaitė-Jakimovska, Justina
• Kairė, Sandra

LTKnygoje, apžvelgiant bendrojo lavinimo mokyklos kaitą, siekiama projektuoti ateitį, o ne diagnozuoti praeities ir dabarties pokyčius. Norima užčiuopti jau potencialiai ar kol kas tik virtualiai švietimo lauke išskirtinas ateities įžvalgas – sąmoningas ir pasąmoningas, keliant klausimus: kur link pasuks Lietuvos bendrojo ugdymo mokykla, kiek ji seks esamomis kitų šalių trajektorijomis, o kiek rinksis savitą būdą, priklausomą nuo šalies sociokultūrinio konteksto ir globalių iššūkių gyventi antropocene? Pateikiami Lietuvos mokyklos ateities scenarijai, atskleidžiamas Lietuvos švietimo ekspertų samprotavimų, požiūrių, vertybių paveikslas. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENThe project Futuristic Scenarios of the Lithuanian General Education School (funded by the Research Council of Lithuania, No. S-MIP-20-58) aimed to explore the changes in the general education school and to develop the projected insights for the future in the form of futuristic scenarios of the Lithuanian general education school. The project included nine stages of scenario development: analysis of relevant literature; expert interviews and inductive and deductive interview data analysis; construction of initial questionnaire items; piloting and adjustment of initial items; conducting the Delphi Survey (Round 1); analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from Round 1; design of the questionnaire for Round 2; conducting the Delphi Survey (Round 2); analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from Round 2 and scenario construction. The main study of the project utilised the Delphi method (Beiderbeck et al., 2021; Markmann et al., 2020) and surveyed 61 experts in education, including academics, school administrators, teachers, and students. The findings yielded four very different scenarios: 1) The School of Eco Care: for the Planet; 2) The School of Exclusion: for Own Groups; 3) The School for the Market: for the Capital; and 4) The School of Individual Meanings: for Own Being. The scenarios are neither utopian nor dystopian but rather realistic visions with elements of utopia and dystopia. They indicate that the expert participants envision strengthening of IT in the future school, though the dominance of IT is viewed with apprehension rather than ease. A by far lesser interest lies in the idea of the “green” school, communality, climate issues and creativity, even if the future is associated with creativity and communication competencies. The content of the school is viewed as decentralised and given more choice according to needs, whereas subjects are predicted to be integrated rather than separated.Creativity is attributed to interdisciplinary undertakings, while physical education appears as an adjunct to health enhancement projects related to the issue of climate change. All the four scenarios foresee the future as bridging together formal and non-formal education without eliminating formal education, except for one scenario. More attention is paid to experiential education, and the virtual mode of teaching and learning is perceived as a convenient refuge that saves time, resources, and travel costs. Diversity of experiences and the influence of the virtual world instigate a new vision of the school’s territoriality and its physical boundaries, although at least partial existence of such territoriality is not questioned. To some degree, it will remain an organisation with its own building and regime, but it will be much more flexible in terms of time and duration of education: education will take place when needed, not according to the predetermined schedule. The issue of teacher’s authority is eradicated. The teacher is a facilitator, an aid, and often merely an IT manager, controller, or, even worse, they are completely given up at school, replaced with artificial intelligence. One-on-one live learning with the teacher is a rare luxury. Everyone understands that the authentic relationship is very important, it helps to maintain empathy, sensitivity, and the sense of community, but it is doubtful whether it will be retained to a necessary degree. To some extent, the teacher can be replaced by other specialists – university professors or experts in their fields. This is one of the ways to change the teacher. Another prominent finding is longing for spirituality as a substitute for IT, which urges individuals to pay more attention to intangible things, to what lies beyond our visible world.Lastly, it is apparent that the current crises faced by the world have greatly frightened education experts, as reflected in the future of the school they see. It is necessary to prepare schoolchildren to understand what it means to defend the country or to know the actualities of war. In addition, there appears a need for psychological help as a large part of students become much more anxious than they were before the crises. In conclusion, it could be argued that current educational developments foster similar ideas across countries which predict that schools will become less rigid in their internal architecture and less monolithic in their treatment of individuals. Underlying this is the idea that education should enable learners to lead a fulfilling personal life, even if it means that curriculum overload should yield to “quality learning time” centred on personalised and collaborative learning. Admittedly, there is reason for scepticism about scenario forecasts as they may be plagued by a number of problems such as hurried unconscious approximations to consciousness (which results in the belief that appearance equals reality), availability heuristic (the tendency to disregard notable influences when making decisions about the future because we tend to use information that comes to mind easily), confidence heuristic and “groupthink” (which results in conformity even among highly educated, skilled and successful people working in their fields of expertise), intolerance of uncertainty and randomness (which creates anxiety in us and a wish to “be on the safe side” and experiment less), illusion of control (which gets even stronger when it involves prediction and, hence, might jokingly be renamed the “illusion of prediction”), the tendency to predict the future by projecting the present, as well as overconfidence or optimism and social desirability or confirmation biases [...]. [From the publication]