866516

research-article2019
EER0010.1177/1474904119866516European Educational Research JournalFim’yar et al.

Contribution to a special issue

European Educational Research Journal

Understanding Ukrainian
2019, Vol. 18(5) 576­–595
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
pedagogical sciences through sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474904119866516
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119866516
textbook analysis of four journals.sagepub.com/home/eer

‘Pedagogy’ textbooks

Olena Fim’yar
University of Cambridge, UK

Iryna Kushnir
Nottingham Trent University, UK

Mariia Vitrukh
Arizona State University, USA

Abstract
In comparison to a vast literature on Soviet education little is known about Ukrainian pedagogical
sciences apart from a mounting critique about the issues of academic dishonesty and plagiarism,
which relates to all higher education disciplines, the absence of an empirical tradition in education
research, a poor record of publication in peer-reviewed journals, and the dominance of a positivist
approach, which seeks to discover ‘laws’ rather than reach ‘understanding’. This paper offers a
thematic analysis of four ‘Pedagogy’ textbooks – three textbooks for under-graduate studies
and one textbook for post-graduate study. The textbook analysis demonstrates that Ukrainian
pedagogical sciences as a research tradition is deeply rooted in its own conceptual apparatus
with no apparent relation to the current debates about teaching and learning in a wider Europe.
The key proposition of the paper is that Ukrainian pedagogical sciences represent a mixture of
Herbatianism and dialectical materialism, with more recent developments that emphasise ‘acme’
or ‘perfectionism’ that could be compared to debates on virtue ethics in education. Alongside
these narratives the discourse of ‘Kozak pedagogy’ contributes to the nation-building narrative
in education. The paper calls for a review of the content of ‘pedagogy’ textbooks currently used
in higher education institutions in Ukraine and envisages that the newly established Ukrainian
Educational Research Association can provide a platform for this important undertaking.

Keywords
Pedagogical sciences, textbook analysis, Ukraine, pedagogy, dialectical materialism

Corresponding author:
Olena Fim’yar, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road, CB28PQ, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Fim’yar et al. 577

Introduction
There is a dearth of international studies on Ukrainian higher education (HE) with the exception
of a few country reports (e.g. British Council, 2015; International Renaissance Foundation,
2015; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017; World Bank, 2003) and
a handful of publications in international peer-reviewed journals (Filiatreau, 2011; Koshmanova
and Ravchyna, 2008; Kovtun and Stick, 2009; Kushnir, 2016; Oleksiyenko, 2016; Shaw, 2013).
The topics addressed in these studies include the questions of education reform and policy
(Filiatreau, 2011; Kovtun and Stick, 2009; Kushnir, 2016; Shaw, 2013), initial teacher education
(Koshmanova and Ravchyna, 2008) and the question of academic integrity (Osipian, 2009,
2010). These studies advance a proposition that attempts at reforming education in Ukraine are
driven by a hybrid neo-liberal and post-communist rationality (Fimyar, 2010), which explains a
number of failed reforms (Kuzio, 2012; Shaw, 2013). Looking at the level of policy-making in
secondary level education, Fimyar explains these drivers as simultaneous attempts to ‘“recapture
Ukraine’s past’’ and build a “spiritually and culturally rich’’ nation, while at the same time,
“catch up with developed ‘“Europe’’’ and thereby build a “modern and technologically advanced’’
market economy’ (Fimyar, 2010: 85). Inevitably, the two distinct political projects envisaged by
the successive ministers are prone to create tensions and incoherencies at the level of policy and
practice. Tracing the implementation of the Bologna Process reforms, Kushnir (2016) observed
similar tendencies, whereby change in policy rhetoric did not translate into changes in institu-
tional practices.
Other alarming issues deeply embedded in Ukrainian HE, widely reported in international reports
and national media, are widespread practices of academic dishonesty and plagiarism (Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017; Osipian, 2010; Parkhomenko, 2016; Surzhyk
2016, 2017). The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which
looks at systemic integrity violation in education in Ukraine suggests that in HE ‘plagirism in some
form is practised by 93% of students’ (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2017: 147), and ‘on average, no less than 50% of dissertations do not meet minimum standards of
academic quality, or are plagiarised, or both’ (Institute for Education Development, 2015 cited in
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017: 147). While the adoption of the
Law about Higher Education of Ukraine (2014) and attendant policy documents (Ministry of
Education and Science of Ukraine, 2018) is aimed at tackling the issue by delegating the responsi-
bility for detecting plagiarism to the Attestation Board of the Ministry of Education and Science, the
National Quality Assurance Agency for HE, and the Academic Councils of Higher Education
Institutions (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017: 145), the factors
contributing to the prevalence of academic dishonesty and plagiarism remain. Among these are limi-
tations in legislation, institutional capacity, lack of ethical norms, assessment procedures prone to
dishonesty, lack of detection capacity and impunity for acts of academic dishonesty (Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017: 149–152).
Persisting Soviet-era practices of separating HE teaching and research, exacerbated by decades
of inadequate funding, also negatively impact the quality of education research in Ukraine. During
the Soviet era, universities were not seen as centres of research, and research was a remit of the
Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. This practice has continued in modern-day Ukraine. For exam-
ple, in the field of education research, the task of conducting pedagogical research is designated to
the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine (NAPSU) and its affiliated research
institutes. The Law about Higher Education of Ukraine (2014) attempted to modify some aspects
of this practice by stipulating the ideas of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘autonomy’ (article 1, clause
1.3). However, the separation of research and teaching is retained in the practices of the NAPSU.
578 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

For example, it is stipulated that the Academy can have an intake of master’s students; however, it
will only be responsible for the research part of the degree, while it will have to cooperate with
higher education institutions (HEIs), which will provide the taught component of the degree (arti-
cle 5, clause 5).
Another important characteristic of Ukrainian pedagogical research is a long-standing tradition
of distinguishing between ‘fundamental’ and ‘applied’ research – a distinction that will be explored
in greater detail in this paper. The NAPSU website is currently listing 51 fundamental research
projects (National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, 2019a) and 46 applied research
projects (National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, 2019b) undertaken by different
institutes of NAPSU between 2017 and 2020. The examples of ‘fundamental’ research projects
include:

(1) ‘Trends in the development of school education in the EU [European Union], the USA and
China’ (Project No 1; Institute of Pedagogy; 2018–2020);
(2) ‘Discursive techniques of identity formation [Ukrainian self-construction of personality]’
(Project No. 12; G.S. Kostiuk Institute of Psychology; 2017–2019);
(3) ‘Trends in the development of adult education in developed countries’
(Project No. 21; Institute of Pedagogy and Adult Education; 2017–2019);
(4) ‘Teaching technologies for adult learners in formal and non-formal education’ (Project No
23; Institute of Pedagogy and Adult Education; 2017–2019); and
(5) ‘Strategies and methods of creative personality development’ (Project No 49; Institute of
Gifted Child; 2018–2020) (National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, 2019a).

The examples of ‘applied’ research projects include:

(1) ‘Didactic-methodological support of competency-oriented teaching in primary school’

(Project No 1; Institute of Pedagogy; 2017–2019);
(2) ‘Methodology of competency-oriented teaching of the Ukrainian Language to lyceum stu-
dents according to the level of the [educational] standard’ (Project No 5; Institute of Pedagogy;
2018–2020);
(3) ‘Organisational and pedagogical principles of designing education environment in a gym-
nasium’ (Project No 14; Institute of Pedagogy; 2019–2021);
(4) ‘Psychological factors of deviant behaviour of minors in the conditions of social transfor-
mations’ (Project No 18; G.S. Kostiuk Institute of Psychology; 2019–2021); and
(5) ‘Modernisation of organisation of educational process in the establishments of extracur-
ricular education (Project No 25; Institute of Problems of Upbringing; 2018-2020)’ (National
Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, 2019b).

The above examples of research projects share several important characteristics. They all
have a tendency to a high level of generalisation and unspecified methodological approaches.
They tend to focus on ‘principles’ or ‘trends’, which are reflective of dialectical materialism
as a ‘form of logic which considers the world as absolute and relative, as having definable
patterns and determinacy’ (Popkewitz and Tabachnik, 1981: 9). The main criticism of
Fim’yar et al. 579

dialogical materialism often mentioned in the literature is its attempt to equate the social
world with the natural world.
Back in 1971 Rosen raised a critique of methodological weaknesses of ‘largely descriptive work
of Soviet research’ which contains ‘little more than demonstration or pilot studies’ and ‘scant accu-
mulation of experimental data’ (Rosen, 1971: 56 cited in Popkewitz and Tabachnik, 1981: 15).
However, Popkewitz and Tabachnick (1981) described Rosen’s critique as an attempt to reduce all
science to the canons of the positivism of American social science. For them, the ‘Soviet experi-
mental approach is similar to the classic experiment in science, such as those done by Galileo. The
purpose of such experimentation is to study the qualitative effects or relationships suggested by
some novel theoretical analysis’ (Popkewitz and Tabachnick, 1981: 16). In the same contribution,
they explain that ‘the favoured methodological approach in Soviet educational research appears to
the “natural” or “formative” experiment [which] relies principally on observation and participation
in regular classroom settings [whereby] precise controls are not imposed before or during the
experiment’ (Popkewitz and Tabachnick, 1981: 32).
As an attempt to introduce new approaches and methodologies to education, the Ukrainian
Educational Research Association (UERA) was established in 2015. The UERA’s founders envis-
aged that the organisation would be built on the values of democratic governance, ethical research,
peer-reviewing, evidence-based pedagogy, collaboration, capacity-building and inter-disciplinarity
(Ukrainian Educational Research Association, 2016). The UERA’s website currently features bus-
tling activity for its members, promoting education research and capacity-building opportunities,
many of which are supported by European Union funding, including the Jean Monnet and
Erasmus+ Programmes. One of the most significant undertakings by the UERA current leadership
is the ‘Ukrainian Teachers and Teaching Climate’ report based on the representative national sur-
vey, which uses Teaching and Learning International Survey methodology (Ukrainian Educational
Research Association, 2018).
The link between the state of development of discipline and textbooks, which teach the disci-
pline, is pointedly explained in Nisbet’s (2002) discussion about early textbooks in education
research. Nisbet argues for a better acknowledgement of the role of textbooks in ‘the creation of a
new discipline, in marking its boundaries and shaping its content, and also in legitimating new
extensions’ in subsequent development of discipline (Nisbet, 2002: 38). He further explains, that:

When an academic discipline is well established, the influence of the textbook is mainly through recognised
courses of instruction for students: the book defines the topics which come within the scope of the
discipline and indicates appropriate procedures for investigation. It consolidates and confirms existing
perceptions, whereas at an early stage in the emergence of a new discipline, the textbook has a more
formative role, acting as a guide to researchers venturing into these unexplored areas and so shaping the
boundaries and content of the new discipline. At a later stage, a new textbook may give a new direction to
the discipline. (Nisbet, 2002: 38)

This paper uses thematic analysis of four ‘pedagogy’ textbooks (Fitsula, 2009; Paschenko and
Krasnoshtan, 2014; Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, 2013; Volkova, 2012) to understand the state of
the art of Ukrainian pedagogy and its relation to other education traditions in Europe. The key
proposition of the paper is that Ukrainian pedagogical sciences represent a mixture of Herbartianism
and dialectical materialism, with more recent developments that emphasise ‘acme’ or ‘perfection-
ism’ that could be compared to debates on virtue ethics in education. Alongside these narratives,
the discourse of ‘Kozak pedagogy’ is also prominent. The paper concludes with a call for a review
of the content of ‘pedagogy’ textbooks currently used in HEIs in Ukraine, and envisages that the
newly established UERA will provide a platform for this important undertaking.
580 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

Practice, science, art and craft of pedagogy

‘Pedagogy’ is a contested term, unevenly received in pedagogical discourses in the English-
speaking world and continental Europe (see Alexander, 2008; Best, 1988; Watkins and Mortimore,
1999). While in continental Europe pedagogy is regarded as a well-established academic disci-
pline, in the English-speaking world, pedagogy, which has received attendant criticisms about
being a poorly defined and ill-conceived term, became historically neglected (Simon, 1981;
Watkins and Mortimore, 1999). Instead, in Britain and the US, discourses of curriculum have
become more prominent, which is reflective of the history of devolved responsibilities for curricu-
lum construction in that part of the world (Alexander, 2008). As a result, in Britain and the US,
pedagogy was made ‘subsidiary to curriculum’ (Alexander, 2008: 47).
The term ‘pedagogy’ has a long history. It stems from a Greek word meaning ‘attendant leading
a boy to school’ (Watkins and Mortimore, 1999: 1). In other accounts, ‘pedagogue’ is translated as
a ‘slave who ushers the children forward until they are ready for their private tutor’ (Best, 1988:
157). ‘Pedagogy’ dates back to 1571 in the Oxford English Dictionary. In modern day usage it
stands for: (1) ‘A place of instruction; a school, a college; a university’; (2) ‘Instruction, discipline,
training; a system of introductory training; a means of guidance’; and (3) ‘The art, occupation, or
practice of teaching. Also: the theory or principles of education; a method of teaching based on
such a theory’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019).
The primary concern of this paper is the meaning of pedagogy as academic discipline. In main-
land Europe, pedagogy as academic discipline has a very broad meaning. It encompasses dis-
courses of ‘health and bodily fitness, social and moral welfare, ethics and aesthetics, as well as
[. . .] the institutional forms that serve to facilitate societies and individual’s pedagogical aims’
(Marton and Booth, 1997: 178 cited in Watkins and Mortimore, 1999: 2). To further illustrate this
point, Alexander uses an example of curriculum structure of a pedagogy degree at a Russian peda-
gogical university, which includes courses on ‘general culture’ (e.g. philosophy, ethics, history,
economics, literature, art and politics); as well as foundations of psychology, physiology, child
development, child law, and preparation for subject teaching, or didaktika and metodika, which
links all the elements of teaching together (Alexander, 2008: 46).
In its current usage in Ukraine, pedagogy as academic discipline is referred to as ‘pedagogical
sciences’, as, for example, in the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, while initial teacher educators
receive their degrees in the ‘pedagogy and methodology of teaching’ of a particular subject. This
tendency of pedagogy as academic discipline to unite under its banner a wide array of theories and
discourses makes it open to criticisms, one of which is, arguably, the lack of rigour in its conceptual
apparatus and methodological approaches.
The major disagreement among educators and researchers who attempted to provide a defini-
tion of pedagogy is whether pedagogy represents ‘science’ or ‘art’. For some, there were enough
grounds to argue that pedagogy cannot be further removed from being a ‘science’, as it is ‘nothing
more than intuition, affect, a compilation of interpersonal relations’ (Best, 1988: 161). Historically,
pedagogy is associated with the ‘science of teaching’, which stems from the works of Pestalozzi
and Kant. However, it is Johann Friedrich Herbart who is considered the founder of the tradition of
‘pedagogy as science’. Herbart practised his work in Germany, but became influential in the US
due to the translation of his seminal book Allgemeine Pädagogik (1806), meaning ‘General
Pedagogics’, which, according to Hamilton (1999), was inadequately translated as the ‘Science of
Education’.
Herbart viewed the ultimate goal of his philosophy as finding ‘the foundation of true psycho-
logical knowledge’ (Herbart, 1896 [2012]: 21). The link between pedagogy and psychology is
important here. It is discussed in more detail in Best’s contribution, where the case of France is
Fim’yar et al. 581

used to illustrate metamorphoses of the term ‘pedagogy’ (Best, 1988: 158–159). In the 1950s and
1960s, France witnessed the birth of a new science – ‘psycho-pedagogy’ – which was subsequently
replaced by ‘pedagogical sciences’ in the early 1970s. This was considered to be a better alternative
for an ill-conceived, newly coined ‘psycho-pedagogy’, which, according to the many criticisms
coming from the circles of French philosophers at the time, rested on a shaky foundation and could
not provide ‘adequate explanation of educational phenomena’ (Best, 1988: 159). In Ukraine now,
and in the Soviet Union previously, the legacy of the merger of the terms is still evident in the
widely used term ‘psychological–pedagogical’ (as in ‘psychological–pedagogical approaches’,
‘psychological–pedagogical characteristics’, etc.), which preface all things related to education
and continue to operate in pedagogical discourses in Ukraine without facing any significant chal-
lenges or objections from the educational community.
An important contribution, which cemented the Herbartian view of pedagogy as ‘science’, was
Herbart’s approach to instruction, which he advocated should unfold in a series of stages:

The first Herbartian stage (clearness) entailed the analysis of previous notions and the addition of new
matter; the second stage (association) focused on the collation, comparing and contrasting similar
phenomena; the third stage (system) was directed towards the establishment of generalised notions; and,
at the final stage (method), practical applications were drawn from the results of the earlier stages.
(Hamilton, 1999: 144)

Apart from his contribution to theory of instruction, Herbart put forward a number of other concepts
that were considered groundbreaking at the time. For example, in an attempt to move beyond a dual
view of the teacher’s task as one of either ‘instruction’ or ‘education’, Herbart put forward the notion
of erziehenden Unterrichts – educating instruction (Biesta and Miedema, 2002: 173). Other con-
cepts, which were part of Herbart’s theory, and which were later revived by his followers,1 are those
of ‘interest’, ‘moral training’ and didactics (Hamilton, 1999: 144).
However, it is Herbart’s epistemological position, which was premised on ‘metaphysics and
mathematics, besides self-observation, experience and experiments’ (Herbart, 1896 [2012]: 21),
that contributed to the subsequent demise of his theories. De Garmo (1896) further illustrates
Herbart’s belief in metaphysics as a basis for psychology and Herbart’s assumption around moral
judgements and ethics, which contributed to his view of pedagogy as ‘science’. Herbart’s ideas
were met with criticism in scholarly circles, especially with the appearance of new pedagogical
theories, such as those of John Dewey (Hayward and Thomas, 1903). Despite the criticism,
Herbart’s ideas were revived later, but with a much lower momentum than they had had before
(Hamilton, 1999) and, as this paper will demonstrate, they continue to shape pedagogical thinking
in Ukraine.
To address the shortcomings of the overemphasis on ‘science’ in earlier iterations of the term
‘pedagogy’, the term ‘pedagogics’, which stands for ‘science, art and principles of pedagogy’, was
introduced in academic and practitioner discourse in the late 18th century. While in linguistic
terms, ‘pedagogy’ is used almost on a par with ‘pedagogics’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019), in
academic circles ‘pedagogy’ is a more accepted term. Best (1988) traces another metamorphosis of
the term ‘pedagogy’, when the term ‘didactics’ was first coined in Germany and soon afterwards
adopted in France in part as the attempt to address continuing criticisms of pedagogy as an aca-
demic discipline. According to Best, ‘didactics’ was coined to denote ‘our understanding of the
relationship between the content that is taught, those who are taught and the teacher’ (Best, 1988:
161). As a result of this split between pedagogy and didactics, ‘general pedagogy’ has become the
philosophy, the sociology and the social psychology of education, whereas ‘specialised’ or ‘sub-
ject’ pedagogy has become didactics (Best, 1988: 161).
582 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

According to Hamilton (1999), the European discourse of didactics is similar to the Anglo-
American discourse of pedagogy. He explains that ‘in both of its classical and Enlightenment
senses, pedagogy denoted the process of upbringing and the influences that might shape this human
activity’ (Hamilton, 1999: 136). He further explains that since the 16th and 17th centuries, the
terms pedagogy and didactics have been circulating in conjunction. He illustrates this by referring
to the Oxford English Dictionary issued in the 1970s where one of the definitions of pedagogy is
the ‘art or science of teaching’, and one of the definitions of didactics is the ‘science or art of teach-
ing’ (Hamilton, 1999: 137). This similarity between the concepts was mirrored in their definitions
provided a decade later. Simon defines pedagogy as the ‘science of teaching embodying both cur-
riculum and methodology’ (Simon, 1981: 125), and Gundem (1998) defines didactics as ‘a science
and theory about teaching and learning in all circumstances and in all forms’ (Gundem, 1998: 6).
Drawing on McDonald (1992) and Marland (1993), Watkins and Mortimore (1999) move the
debate around the definition of pedagogy forward by proposing an alternative way of thinking
about pedagogy, which is as neither science nor art, but as a ‘craft’. It is in this sense that Eisner
views teaching as improvisatory for ‘the ends it [teaching] achieves are often created in process’
with a multiplicity of everchanging and unpredictable circumstances in which teaching takes place
(Eisner 1979: 153 cited in Alexander, 2008: 51). Similarly, Brown and McIntyre view experienced
teachers’ work as grounded in ‘a craft knowledge of ideas, routines and conditions, which they
map empirically in respect of pupils, time, content, the material environment and teachers them-
selves’ (Brown and McIntyre, 1993 cited in Alexander, 2008: 50).
The most recent contribution to the discussion of pedagogy, which revived the interest in this
term in English-speaking countries and beyond, is the work by Alexander, who views pedagogy as
both the act and discourse (Alexander, 2000: 540). He defines pedagogy as ‘the act of teaching and
body of knowledge, argument and evidence in which it is embedded and by which particular class-
room practices are justified’ (Alexander, 2008: 46). By attending to both meanings of the term
pedagogy, Alexander brings out attention to ‘the bigger picture’, whereby pedagogy ‘connects the
apparently self-contained act of teaching with culture and mechanisms of social control’ (Alexander,
2000: 540).
In the analysis that follows, we will demonstrate that the discussion about the definition of the
term ‘pedagogy’ is largely absent in the four textbooks under analysis. What analysis demonstrates
is the continuing legacy of Herbartian views of pedagogy, reinforced with dialectical materialism,
alongside discourses of ‘Kozak pedagogy’, which are mobilised as nation-building narrative in
education.

Methodological approach
This paper offers a thematic analysis of four ‘pedagogy’ textbooks – three textbooks for under-
graduate studies (Fitsula, 2009; Pashcheko and Krasnoshtan, 2014; Volkova, 2012) and one
textbook for postgraduate study (Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, 2013). Our decision to use text-
book analysis was guided by Nisbet’s proposition that ‘the textbook may be both a reflection of
current development [in disciplines], and one of the influences on subsequent development’
(Nisbet, 2002: 38). Musteață viewed textbook analysis as ‘an integral part of the reform and
development of educational systems’ (Musteață, 2011: 3). O’Keeffe’s (2013) approach to text-
book analysis is based on four key elements: content; structure; expectation; and language. The
US National Science Resources Center assessment criteria (Swanepoel, 2010: 135) included
pedagogical appropriateness, content, and presentation and format. Open and axial coding
(Blaikie, 2010) were used to extract categories of the texts we analysed and establish relation-
ships among them.
Fim’yar et al. 583

The decision to use textbooks for analysis was also influenced by existing studies, which used
textbook analysis to explore the construction of national identities and political landscapes in post-
Soviet contexts (e.g. Silova, 2006; Silova et al., 2014; Williams, 2014). Silova et al. (2014) focus
on the role of ‘spatial socialization’ of their young readers in Armenia, Latvia and Ukraine (Silova
et al., 2014: 103). Building on Newman and Paasi’s (1998) theoretical framework, Silova et al.
consider educational texts as embodying (and embedded in) plural ‘pedagogies’ of space as expres-
sions of the national ‘sociospatial consciousness’ (Silova et al., 2014).
We have selected the three textbooks for undergraduate studies based on the recommendation
by a group of initial teacher educators currently working in two HEIs in Ukraine, who attended
capacity-building training in the UK. They described these textbooks as ‘classic’ textbooks in ini-
tial teacher education, which are approved and recommended by the Ministry of Education and
Science of Ukraine2, and are used as key resources in preparation for state examinations. We
searched for an additional textbook for postgraduate studies online, in the hope of seeing an alter-
native approach to content and presentation of key pedagogical ideas in Ukraine. In each textbook
we have analysed several chapters, which explain the structure and objectives of pedagogy as sci-
ence and methodology, and methods of pedagogical research. The analysis starts by unpacking
definitions of pedagogy, its sub-fields and links with other disciplines. The objectives of Ukrainian
pedagogical science are analysed next, followed by an analysis of the typology of pedagogical
research (fundamental, applied and implementation), and key methodological approaches and
methods.

Data display: ‘the state of the art’ of Ukrainian pedagogical

sciences
Little is known about the developments of Ukrainian pedagogical sciences after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. This paper addresses this question through a textbook analysis of key pedagogy
textbooks currently used as principal resources in undergraduate and postgraduate teaching degrees
in initial teacher education in Ukraine. The textbooks were written by experienced Ukrainian
scholars, who obtained their Candidate of Sciences degree in 1968 (Volkova and Sysoyeva) and
1986 (Krystopchuk). The textbooks were selected for publication as a result of a national competi-
tion, and were approved by the Ministry of Education and Science and recommended as teaching
resources in initial teacher education. The textbooks are key resources in preparation for state
examinations.
Looking at the synopses3 of the four textbooks (see Figure 1), a few similarities between the
textbooks can be observed. First, the introductory chapters offer information about the general
principles and theories of pedagogy and tendencies of student personality development. Second,
synopses place a lot of importance on developing teaching skills and attitudes, and skills of ‘self-
assessment’ and ‘self-analysis’ (Pashchenko and Krasnoshtan, 2014). What is also evident is the
breadth with which the discussion is presented – ‘from the times of Kievan Rus to the present’
(Fitsula, 2009) or ‘the formation of world and domestic pedagogical sciences and practice from the
ancient times to the present’ (Volkova, 2012). The emphasis is placed on learning about the process
of education reform, school education and ‘innovative national education’. Sysoyeva and
Krystopchuk’s (2014) textbook is different in its focus, as it aims to provide methodological prepa-
ration for master’s-level students to undertake pedagogical research.
Furthermore, all the textbooks place emphasis on upbringing as the main process and result of
pedagogy, and convey a close link between pedagogy and psychology. All the textbooks also
emphasise the existence of one theory of upbringing, and take a position that pedagogical pro-
cesses follow objective rules or laws. Nevertheless, it remains unclear from these synopses what is
584 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

Fitsula (2009)
The third edition of the textbook outlines general principles of pedagogy, the theory of teaching and
upbringing, foundations of school education, taking into account current achievements of psychological
and pedagogical science, and the experience of building, and the peculiarities of reforming, Ukrainian
education. The textbook includes information about the history of education, school and pedagogy, as
well as the development of schooling and pedagogical thought in Ukraine from the times of Kievan Rus
to the present. The publication includes questions and a short glossary of key terms to help understand
educational material more deeply. The target audience for the textbook are students of higher education
institutions.

Volkova (2012)
The textbook outlines general principles of pedagogy, the theory of upbringing, education and training,
specificities and tendencies of personality development of students, and the peculiarities of the educational
system in Ukraine. Considerable attention is paid to issues related to activities, professional development,
competences, psychological, communicative preparation [of teachers] and teachers’ attitudes. Various
aspects of school education, as well as the formation of world and domestic pedagogical sciences and
practice from ancient times to the present, are highlighted. The target audience for the textbook are
students of higher education institutions. Teacher-practitioners will also find this textbook useful.

Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk (2013)

The purpose of the textbook is to develop the methodological culture of students in conducting pedagogical
research and ensuring their in-depth theoretical and technological preparation for writing research projects,
taking into account modern requirements [in terms of] level and quality of scientific research. The target
audience of the textbook are master’s-level students of the ‘Pedagogy of Higher Education’ specialisation,
researchers, graduate students, postgraduate students and teachers who conduct pedagogical research.

Pashchenko and Krasnoshtan (2014)

The textbook helps students to master theoretical foundations of modern pedagogical science and develop
professional thinking, as well as prepare students for conscious learning of professional skills necessary
for effective work in innovative national education, and direct the experience of self-assessment and self-
analysis of pedagogical phenomena and situations, the ability to model the educational process and form
professional self-consciousness.

Figure 1. Synopses of the four textbooks.

the exact focus of pedagogy as an academic discipline. More importantly, the types of evidence or
literature used to substantiate the claims in the textbooks are not mentioned in synopses. Direct
citations of the synopses used in the textbooks are presented in Figure 1.
What stands in sharp contrast to the use of terms such as ‘innovative’ and ‘the present’ in the
synopses in Figure 1 are the outdated references, some of which are more than 50 years old (e.g.
year of publication, 1966). The initial look at the list of references in Fitsula’s (2009) textbook
shows that despite the recent year of publication, the textbook mainly references the Soviet/Russian
pedagogical tradition. With the abundance of studies from Soviet-era education cited in Fitsula
(2009), one can see that educational discourses presented in the textbook do not advance beyond
the time of the late Soviet period. Looking at Figure 2, which presents the reference list from
Fitsula’s (2009) Chapter 1.2, one can conclude that the 21st-century pedagogical discourse has not
yet arrived on the pages of this textbook, and that Ukrainian HE students continue to be educated
predominantly through the conceptual apparatuses and discourses of the Soviet pedagogical tradi-
tion. Book titles such as New School (year of publication, 1996) and Pedagogical Forecast (year
of publication, 1987) look outdated and out of place for 21st-century educators in Ukraine.
Fim’yar et al. 585

Volkov GN (1966) Etnopedagogika Chuvashskogo Naroda [Ehtno-pedagogy of Chuvash People].

Cheboksary. [In Russian.]
Derzhavna Natsional’na Prohrama “Osvita” (Ukrayina XXI stolittia”) [State National ‘Education’
Programme: Ukraine in the 21st century] (1994) Kyiv. [In Ukrainian.]
Zhuravlev VI (1990) Pedagogika v Sisteme Nauk o Cheloveke [Pedagogy in the System of Human
Sciences]. Moscow. [In Russian.]
Zagviazinskiy VI (1987) Pedagogicheskoe Predvidenie [Pedagogical Forecast]. Moscow. [In Russian.]
Kravets VP (1996) Zarubizhna Shkola i Pedahohika XX stolittia [Foreign Schooling and Pedagogy of
the 20th Century]. Ternopil. [In Ukrainian.]
Kuz VH, Rudenko YD and Serveychuk ZO (1993) Osnovy Natsionalnoho Vykhovannia [Foundations of
the National Upbringing]. Uman. [In Ukrainian.]
Podlasyy IP (1999) Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. Moscow. [In Russian.]
Rusova S (1996) Nova Shkola: Vybr. Ped. Tvory [New School: Selected essays on pedagogy]. Kyiv. [In
Ukrainian.]
Stelmakhovych MH (1985) Narodna Pedahohika [People’s Pedagogy]. Kyiv. [In Ukrainian.]
Slastenin VA, Isayev IF, Mishchenko AI and Shyyanov EN (1998) Pedagogika [Pedagogy]. Moscow.
[In Russian.]
Franko IY (1986) Najnovishi Napriamy v Narodoznavstvi [The Latest Developments in Ethnography].
The 50-volume edition. Volume 45. Kyiv. [In Ukrainian.]

Figure 2. References from Chapter 1.2 of Fitsula (2009: 24).

Pedagogy as ‘science’
This part of the paper examines the aims and objectives of pedagogy as an academic discipline. It
provides an analysis of the definitions of pedagogy, its content and its links with other
disciplines.

Definition of pedagogy. Table 1 provides definitions of pedagogy presented in the four textbooks.
All the definitions view pedagogy as a science that aims to uncover ‘objective laws’ pertinent to
the development of personality.
In the definitions in Table 1, Fitsula (2009) and Volkova (2012) emphasise that pedagogy is a
science, which is limited mainly to formal education (Fitsula 2009). Adult education is not
acknowledged as part of pedagogy, to the extent that some sources imply that there is a separation
between adult education and pedagogy. For example, Volkova states that ‘Pedagogical science
emerged as a theory of upbringing for the young generation’ (Volkova, 2012: 13) and continues to
discuss the importance of this age for the development of personality.
A few observations need to be included about the level of complexity of language that the
authors of the textbooks use to convey their ideas. The authors tend to use complex language,
which can pose difficulties for students’ comprehension. For example, Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk
tend to use a number of English transliterations conjugated according to rules of Ukrainian gram-
mar, including ‘targeted procedural actions’ (Ukrainian ‘цілеспрямoваних прoцесуальних [pro-
cess] дій’) (Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, 2013: 11); ‘have to admit the most important immanent
reason’ (Ukrainian ‘доводиться констатувати найважливішу іманентну [immanent] причину’)
(Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, 2013: 11); ‘the problems of education modernisation are resolved
voluntarily’ (Ukrainian ‘проблеми модернізації освіти розв’язуються волюнтаристськи [vol-
untarily]’) (Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, 2013: 21).
Another tendency present in all the textbooks are the carefully drawn distinctions between the
‘subject’ and ‘object’ of this discipline. Pashchenko and Krasnoshtan maintain that: ‘The object
586 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

Table 1. Definition of pedagogy.

Fitsula (2009) Volkova (2012) Sysoyeva and Pashchenko and

Krystopchuk (2013) Krasnoshtan (2014)
‘Pedagogy is a complex Pedagogy is ‘a self- Not provided ‘Pedagogy is a
of theoretical and applied contained/integral science about
sciences that study multidisciplinary science, upbringing a
processes of upbringing, which studies the laws [sic] person. By
teaching/learning, of learning and upbringing, upbringing we
and development of and the development of a mean education,
personality’ (p.9) child’s personality’ (p.11) teaching/learning
Pedagogy studies ‘Pedagogy (Greek paidos and personality
‘upbringing activities – child, and ago – leading) development’ (p.13)
which take place in is a science that studies the
education establishments processes of upbringing,
by professionals trusted teaching and learning,
by the society [teachers]’ and the development of
(p.10) personality’ (p.12)

of science [is] something that exists as a reality beyond the actual investigation. The same object
can be studied by different disciplines’ (Pashchenko and Krasnoshtan, 2014: 18). Volkova defines
the object of pedagogical science as the ‘area of social activities, the main purpose of which is
upbringing and teaching’ (Volkova, 2012: 12). The author defines the subject of pedagogy as
‘relationships that develop in the process of pedagogical activities, methods, principles, on the
basis of which these activities are performed, laws and tendencies by which these activities are
guided as an integral process’ (Volkova, 2012: 13). Pashchenko and Krasnoshtan provide a simi-
lar definition of the subject of pedagogy, which is ‘the actual process of development and forma-
tion of personality in the context of upbringing, teaching/learning, [and] education’ (Pashchenko
and Krasnoshtan, 2014: 19).

Sub-fields of pedagogy: when everything is becoming pedagogy. Table 2 provides an overview of the
branches of pedagogy presented in the textbooks under analysis. What is striking in Table 2 is the
all-encompassing nature of pedagogy, which stretches across time and different fields of human
activity. Pedagogy embraces the ideas of prominent educational thinkers and certain historical
periods, which are significant in modern Ukraine (e.g. ‘Kozak pedagogy’). Table 2 gives an impres-
sion that all aspects of human activity can potentially come under the banner of pedagogy, and that
everything is becoming a pedagogy.

Links with other disciplines. All the textbooks except for Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk (2013) discuss
the interdisciplinary nature of pedagogy. Fitsula (2009) maintains that pedagogy has links with
philosophy, sociology, psychology, and people’s anatomy and physiology. Volkova (2012) pro-
vides the same list, supplementing it with economics and ethnology. Pashchenko and Krasnoshtan
(2014) discuss the links between Ukrainian pedagogy and foreign pedagogies. Fitsula (2009)
expresses similar views about a distinct nature of the Ukrainian pedagogy. Pashchenko and Kras-
noshtan (2014) go even further by stating that the personalities of Ukrainian students develop dif-
ferently from the personalities of foreign students.
In an attempt to situate Ukrainian pedagogy in relation to foreign pedagogy, Fitsula (2009)
list the following most important directions of foreign pedagogy: philosophical;
Fim’yar et al. 587

Table 2. Branches of pedagogy.

Fitsula (2009) Volkova (2012) Sysoyeva and Pashchenko and

Krystopchuk (2013) Krasnoshtan (2014)
– General pedagogy –G  eneral pedagogy (foundations – Methodology of – Pedagogies of
– Age-specific of pedagogy, theory of teaching education different famous
pedagogy and education (didactics), theory – History of people (e.g.
– Pedagogy for of upbringing, theory of managing education pedagogy of
correction [special the teaching-upbringing process – Pedagogy in Disterveg (p.16)
needs pedagogy] (school studies)) different subject – ‘Kozak pedagogy
(surdo-pedagogy –A  ge-specific pedagogy areas is the highest
(for the deaf- ( pre-school pedagogy, pedagogy – Special needs peak of Ukrainian
mute), speech of secondary education) pedagogy national pedagogy’
therapy, pedagogy –P  rofessional pedagogy (pedagogy (p.15) (p.17)
for the blind, of vocational education, pedagogy
pedagogy for of higher education)
oligophrenia) –P  edagogy for correction [special
– Branch pedagogies needs pedagogy] (surdo-pedagogy
[Ukrainian haluzevi (for the deaf-mute), speech
pedagogiky] (avia therapy, pedagogy for the blind,
pedagogy, army pedagogy for oligophrenia)
pedagogy) – History of pedagogy
– History of –M  ethodologies of teaching
pedagogy and specific subjects
school – School hygiene
– Methodologies of – Comparative pedagogy
teaching specific –B  ranch pedagogies (avia pedagogy
subjects [Ukrainian and army pedagogy)
predmetni –Folk pedagogy
metodyky] –Pedagogy of ethnography
– Social pedagogy [Ukrainian narodoznavstva]
(p.18) – Family pedagogy
– ‘Kozak pedagogy’
– Spiritual pedagogy
–P  edagogical deontology (about
the code of conduct for teachers)
– Social pedagogy (pp.12–18)

psychological–pedagogical; and social. He maintains that the philosophical direction emerged

from the philosophy of neo-positivism, existentialism, neo-Thomism, and others. The psycho-
logical–pedagogical direction was developed in the theories of German theorists such as Wilhelm
Leah (1862–1926) and Ernst Meyman (1862–1916) in the early 20th century. The social direc-
tion is concerned with the substantiation of the doctrine of a so-called ‘noosphere’ (the interac-
tion between nature and society), and the development of ‘the noosphere pedagogy’ in the early
20th century.

Questions of methodology and sampling in Ukrainian pedagogical sciences

Having discussed the meaning of pedagogy and its sub-fields, and its links with other disciplines, we
now turn to the analysis of methodological approaches outlined in the textbooks under analysis.
588 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

Table 3. ‘Fundamental’, ‘applied’ and ‘implementation’: confusion between methodology and sampling.

Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk (2013: 16–22)

Fundamental – Create basis for applied and implementation research
[studies] – Aim to develop theories and theoretical concepts through uncovering general
tendencies in the pedagogical process
– Work out methodology for pedagogical research
– Use big research samples
- Add to the history of pedagogy
Applied – Are based on fundamental research
[studies] – Have narrower focus than fundamental research
– Aim to address current practical situations and develop recommendations of how
to improve the pedagogical process
– Use methods worked out by fundamental research
– Use smaller research samples
– Take short time to conduct research and use its results
– Do not uncover general tendencies in the pedagogical process
Implementation – Are based on applied research
[studies] – Aim to help implement the results of applied research in practice (explanations
of the conditions suitable for the creation of new education establishments, study
programmes, textbooks, etc.)
– Have to be suitable for practical implementation

Types of pedagogical research. The analysis of the types of pedagogical research suggests that the
quest for objective truth is the main preoccupation of Ukrainian pedagogical sciences. There is also
a widely accepted typology of pedagogical research, which distinguishes between ‘fundamental’,
‘applied’ and ‘implementation’ research. According to Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, the classifica-
tion of pedagogical sciences into fundamental, applied and implementation is the most common in
policy documents and in social science research (Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, 2013: 16). This same
classification is presented in other textbooks under analysis (e.g. Fitsula, 2009; Pashchenko and
Krasnoshtan, 2014; Volkova, 2012). Table 3 outlines key differences between the three types of
research using examples from Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk (2013: 16–22).
In trying to illustrate the differences between fundamental and applied research, Sysoyeva and
Krystopchuk use a metaphor of tree roots and branches, whereby applied research, similarly to tree
branches, develops on the basis of fundamental research – tree roots, which feed branches
(Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk, 2013: 20). The fact that the authors revert to the use of metaphors is
further evidence of the rather eclectic nature of Ukrainian pedagogical sciences.

Methods of pedagogical research. According to Fitsula, ‘Method of scientific-pedagogical research

[is] a way of researching and mastering the complex psychological-pedagogical processes of
personality formation, establishing objective regularity of upbringing and teaching’ (Fitsula,
2009: 27). Volkova (2012: 20) maintains that: ‘Method of scientific–pedagogical research [is] a
means of researching psychological–pedagogical processes of personality formation [and] estab-
lishing objective regularity between upbringing and teaching’. Table 4 provides an overview of
the methods of pedagogical research presented in the four textbooks under analysis. It is worth
noting that Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk’s (2013) textbook provides the most detailed account of
methods. However, despite this abundance of classifications no examples or references to com-
pleted research are provided in all textbooks under analysis. As a result, students learn about
Fim’yar et al. 589

Table 4. Methods of pedagogical research.

Fitsula (2009) Volkova (2012) Sysoyeva and Krystopchuk Pashchenko and

(2013) Krasnoshtan (2014)
Empirical: observation, Methods: pedagogical Theoretical methods: ‘The presence of
discussion observation, analysis and synthesis; scientific worldview
(interview), survey, discussion, interview, induction and deduction; allows a person
experiment, studying experiment, studying analogy and abstraction; to perceive the
school documents the results of concretisation and modelling; environment
and students’ work, activities, sociological idealisation and formalisation; adequately
ranking, summarising methods (surveys, summary and comparison; and evaluate it
independent ranking, summary thinking experiment objectively’ (p.20).
characteristics, of independent Empirical methods: pedagogical
psychological– characteristics), observation; pedagogical
pedagogical testing, science methods (p.21) experiment; rating; testing;
sociometry, analysis Stages of research study, analysis and summary
of students’ academic (pp.33–35): research of pedagogical experience;
performance results problem identification, scientific and pedagogical
Theoretical: studying scientific expedition; literature review
(analysis, synthesis, facts, studying Sociological methods:
induction, deduction, school practice, questionnaires; interview and
comparison, hypothesis formation, pedagogical talk; sociometrics/
classification, experimental work, network analysis; expert
summarising, comparison of the analysis; pedagogical council
abstracting, results with mass [Ukrainian Konsilium]
specification) practice, summarising Mathematical methods: ranging;
Mathematical and research results, scales; synthesis; correlation;
statistical (registering, writing up of research regression; cluster analysis;
ranking, modelling, results factor analysis; latent-
measuring) (p.27) structural analysis (pp.85–323)

research not by reading about or designing the studies, but by memorising the classifications
shown in Table 4.

Discussion: intellectual isolation of Ukrainian pedagogical

‘sciences’
The analysis presented in this paper points to a problem for the field of pedagogical sciences in
Ukraine of intellectual isolation from the discussions taking place elsewhere in Europe, including
theories of learning, teacher development, action research, marketisation of education, social ine-
qualities, education for displaced populations, to name just a few. Attention has been drawn to the
problem of intellectual isolation of Ukrainian pedagogical science by a number of scholars, includ-
ing Fimyar and Schudlo (2015), and Shaw et al. (2011).
In the overview of the state of Ukrainian pedagogy after the Maidan Revolution, Fimyar and
Schudlo (2015) noted the absence of an empirical tradition in education research, a poor record of
publication in international peer-reviewed journals and the dominance of a positivist approach,
which seeks to discover ‘laws’ rather than reach ‘understanding’, as key obstacles contributing to
the stagnation of the discipline. To demonstrate the absence of an empirical tradition of pedagogi-
cal research, Fimyar and Schudlo (2015) critique an oft-cited definition of pedagogy as ‘a science’
that studies:
590 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

the objective [sic] laws of the particular historical process of upbringing, organically [sic] connected with
the laws of the development of social relations as well as the real [sic] social upbringing practice of
formation of young generations, [and] particulars and conditions of organisation of pedagogical process.
(Educational materials online, n.d. cited in Fimyar and Schudlo, 2015)

Fimyar and Schudlo (2015) further maintain that the above definition shares several important char-
acteristics with Grebennikova’s (2012: 6–7) study, which equates the latest developments in
Ukrainian pedagogical research (including ‘acmeology’, ‘educology’ and ‘human nanotechnology’)
with pseudosciences, which are characterised by:

(1) explicit or implicit anti-intellectualism manifested in the determination of their whole theory
by a single holistic concept such as ‘objective law’, ‘system’, ‘information’, ‘chaos’ or
‘game’;
(2) optimism in the applicability of their core concepts to major spheres of human life;
(3) manipulative and mechanistic approach to social reality;
(4) opportunistic definitions of ‘science’ and ‘method’;
(5) substitution of methods by principles;
(6) theological nature manifested in the belief that an ideal that is implicit in their holistic doc-
trine can and should be achieved; and
(7) hybridity of genres as a result of drawing on facts, methods and rhetoric used by different
systems of cultural production, including religious and spiritual practice, sciences, media, art,
etc. (Grebennikova, 2012: 6–7 cited in Fimyar and Schudlo, 2015; cf. Dmitriev, 1997: 260).

Some roots of the stagnation of the discipline can be traced back to Soviet times. In an overview of
Soviet pedagogical science, Popkewitz explained that ‘for Soviet social and psychological scien-
tists, [the] individual does not embrace reality through theoretical ability (contemplation), precon-
ception or knowledge alone, but through a practical ability in which production and action takes
precedence over knowledge’ (Popkewitz, 1984: 113). In relation to methodology and methods,
Popkewitz commented that ‘the Western tradition is concerned with the internal logic of knowl-
edge, and efficiency and organisation of research procedures. While the Soviets are concerned with
logic and efficiency, they place these concerns in an explicit normative, epistemological and con-
ceptual context’ (Popkewitz, 1984: 116).
The discussion about the development of pedagogical sciences in Ukraine would not be
complete without mentioning one important development in the late 1990s, when ‘acmeology’
as a part of the new science movement was ‘institutionalised as a science and a philosophy
primarily among educational professionals in secondary and higher educational institutions in
Ukraine’ (Grebennikova, 2012: 9). Following Gladkova and Pozharskyi (2011), Grebennikova
explains that acmeology ‘proposes to establish an integrative field of research to study regulari-
ties and conditions of “perfection” in different fields of human activity’ (Gladkova and
Pozharskyi, 2011: 180 cited in Grebennikova, 2012: 10). Drawing on Palchevs’kyi (2005),
Grebennikova further explains that ‘[w]hat is meant under “perfection” is professionalism and
professional success, which is a person’s acme, the highest point of life. To reach one’s acme,
a professional should practice self-improvement and self-reliance; creativity and “finding your
own genius” is a must’ (Palchevs’kyi, 2005: 242–249 cited in Grebennikova, 2012: 10) and:
Fim’yar et al. 591

Everything is believed to have an acme. A society reaches its highest perfection as an ‘acmeo-socium’
(UAAS, 2009a) if it attains internal equilibrium between groups, which is similar to economic optimum.
At the same time, acme is relative. For example, general facts about a historical period retrospectively
become its highest ‘perfection’ in acmeological reconstructions of history (Gladkova & Pozharskyi, 2011:
22–23), while the ability to fit into one’s historical situation is considered the acme of an individual.
(Grebennikova, 2012: 10–11)

Although acmeology ‘has not been officially recognised as a science: it still has no approval from
the Ukrainian VAK (Higher Attestation Commission)’ Grebennikova (2012: 10), its impact on the
development of Ukrainian pedagogical sciences cannot be underestimated.

Conclusion
The analysis presented in this paper has demonstrated the eclectic nature of the Ukrainian peda-
gogical sciences, which represent a mixture of Herbatianism and dialectical materialism, with
more recent developments that emphasise ‘acme’ or ‘perfectionism’ that could be compared to
debates on virtue ethics in education. Alongside these narratives, the discourse of ‘Kozak peda-
gogy [as] the highest peak of Ukrainian national pedagogy’ contributes to the nation-building nar-
rative in education (Pashchenko and Krasnoshtan, 2014). The textbooks under analysis also project
a view of education, as a teacher-led undertaking that primarily relies on rote learning and memo-
risation. The density of the language with which the material is presented poses difficulties to
students’ comprehension and stifles the debate about what teaching and learning in 21st-century
Ukraine should look like and be modelled on.
We would like to conclude this paper by reflecting on the process of writing, which made us
revisit our own experiences of secondary education and HE in Ukraine. This joint endeavour
brought a lot of doubt and uncertainty about the value of this exercise. Our first concern was that
this paper might become yet another publication that would be largely ignored in Ukraine. We were
also aware that this paper, and the fact that all three of us received our postgraduate education
outside Ukraine, can make it easy to interpret our argument as blind faith in Eurocentrism (see
Fimyar’s (2011) reflection on trying to escape this ‘discourse’).
What supported us in the process was the feeling of collegiality with future and present genera-
tions of students and teachers and Ukraine, and a shared sense of responsibility for the state and
future directions of Ukrainian pedagogical sciences. What also gave us inspiration was the fact that
the concerns raised in this paper are not the only voices in the field of education in Ukraine. Similar
concerns are also raised in Ukraine by academic staff (see Parkhomenko, 2016) and parents (see
Andrusyak, 2012; Zvynyackivska, 2012a, 2012b), who eagerly critique the legacies of the past in
research and school textbooks, and want to see a new version of education and research in Ukraine.
To strengthen those voices, we call for an urgent review of the content of the pedagogy textbooks
currently used in HEIs in Ukraine. Further research is needed to develop a roadmap for revision.
UERA – in the establishment of which all three authors were actively involved – can provide a
platform for this important undertaking.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Professor David Bridges’ initiative and support in convening the
ECER 2017 two-part symposium entitled ‘Rigour’, ‘Discipline’ and the ‘Systematic’ in Educational
Research: Fetish or Fundamental? – participation in which helped us articulate the argument developed in
this paper. We appreciate the feedback of two anonymous reviewers, who have helped us strengthen our argu-
ment. We are also grateful to our Ukrainian colleagues, who recommended data sources and provided three
‘pedagogy’ textbooks for analysis.
592 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Olena Fim’yar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4108-6539

Notes
1. See Hamilton’s (1999: 144) discussion about the revival of Herbart’s instructional theory in the works
by Karl Volkmar Stoy (1815–1885), Friedrich Wilhelm Dörpfeld (1824–1893) and Twiskon Ziller
(1817–1882).
2. The process of approval of the textbooks with the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine stamps
is stipulated in the Order No 537 from 17.06.2018 (Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 2008).
3. Synopses are cited from the textbooks. English-language translation from Ukrainian are done by the
authors. The translation follows as closely as possible the style and grammatical structure of the original.

References
Alexander RJ (2000) Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Alexander RJ (2008) Education for All: The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy. Brighton:
Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity.
Andrusyak I (2012) Navischo mama rozlyvaye chay? [Why is mom ‘pouring away’ tea?] Ukrainska Pravda,
3 December 2012. Available at: https://life.pravda.com.ua/columns/2012/12/3/116848/ (accessed 15
February 2018). [In Ukrainian.]
Best F (1988) The metamorphoses of the term ‘pedagogy’. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Education 28(2):
157–66. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000080369 (accessed 12 May 2019).
Biesta GJ and Miedema S (2002) Instruction or pedagogy? The need for a transformative conception of edu-
cation. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(2): 173–181.
Blaikie NWH (2010) Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation. Cambridge, UK and Malden,
MA: Polity Press.
British Council (2015) Higher education in Ukraine: Briefing paper. Available at: https://www.britishcoun-
cil.org/sites/default/files/ukraine_he_briefing_paper.pdf (accessed 14 May 2019).
Brown S and McIntyre D (1993) Making Sense of Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
De Garmo C (1896) The significance of Herbart for secondary and higher education. Educational Review 11:
42–43.
Dmitriev D (1997) Pedagogical psychology and the development of education in Russia. In: Grigorenko EL,
Ruzgis P and Sternberg RJ (eds) Psychology in Russia: Past, Present, Future. New York: Nova Science
Publishers, pp.251–292.
Educational materials online (n.d.) Ob’yek, Predmet, Funktsii i Zavdannia Pedagogiky [Object, subject, func-
tions and tasks of pedagogy]. Available at: http://pidruchniki.com/13121009/pedagogika/obyekt_pred-
met_funktsiyi_zavdannya_pedagogiki (accessed 13 May 2019). [In Ukrainian.]
Eisner EW (1979) The use of qualitative forms of evaluation for improving educational practice. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1(6): 11–19.
Filiatreau S (2011) Ukraine’s participation in the Bologna Process: Has it resulted in more transparency
in Ukrainian higher education institutions? International Research & Review: Journal of the Phi Beta
Delta H 1(1): 1–47.
Fimyar O (2010) Policy why(s): Policy rationalities and the changing logic of educational reform in postcom-
munist Ukraine. In: Silova I (ed.) Post-Socialism is Not Dead: (Re)reading the Global in Comparative
Fim’yar et al. 593

Education (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 14). Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, pp.61–91.
Fimyar O (2011) A manifesto of a post-communist post-structuralist researcher: Post-viva voce reflections.
European Education: Issues and Studies 43(2): 74–97.
Fimyar O and Shchudlo S (2015) Pedagogy after Maidan: Can Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed offer a
viable alternative for Ukraine? In: Danyliw Research Seminar on Contemporary Ukraine, Ottawa, 22–24
October. Available at: http://www.danyliwseminar.com/#!paper-fimyar/c6q1n (accessed 13 May 2019).
Fitsula M (2009) Pedahohika: Pidruchnyk [Pedagogy: Textbook]. 3rd edition. Kyiv: Academic Press. [In
Ukrainian.]
Gladkova VM and Pozharskyi SD (2011) Osnovy Akmeolohii: Pidruchnyk [Foundations of Achmeology:
Textbook]. Lviv: Novyi Svit-2000. [In Ukrainian.]
Grebennikova G (2012) The politics of knowledge innovation: The case of acmeology as a ‘new science’
movement in the Ukrainian educational system. MPhil dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.
Available at: https://www.academia.edu/2633034/The_Politics_of_Knowledge_Innovation_the_Case_
of_Acmeology_as_a_New_Science_Movement_in_the_Ukrainian_Educational_System (accessed 15
February 2018).
Gundem BB (1998) Didaktik, Didaktik (k), Didactique [Understanding European Didactics – An Overview].
Oslo: Institute for Educational Research, University of Oslo. [In Norwegian.]
Hamilton D (1999) The pedagogical paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture & Society
7(1): 135–152.
Hayward FH and Thomas ME (1903) The Critics of Herbartianism: And Other Matter Contributory to the
Study of the Herbartian Question. London: S. Sonnenschein.
Herbart JF (1896 [2012]) The Science of Education, Its General Principles Deduced, from its Aim and the
Aesthetic Revelation of the World. (Classic reprint). London: Forgotten Books.
Institute for Education Development (2015) Akademichna Kul’tura Ukrains’koho Studenstva: Osnovni
Chunnyku Formuvannia ta Rozvytku [Academic Culture of Ukrainian Student Community: Primary
Factors of Formation and Development]. Kyiv. [In Ukrainian.]
International Renaissance Foundation (2015) Civil society monitoring study of IDP access to education.
Available at http://www.irf.ua/knowledgebase/publications/?rubric=0&query=education (accessed 15
February 2018).
Koshmanova T and Ravchyna T (2008) Teacher preparation in a post-totalitarian society: An interpretation
of Ukrainian teacher educators’ stereotypes. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
21(2): 137–158.
Kovtun O and Stick S (2009) Ukraine and the Bologna Process: A case study of the impact of the Bologna
Process on Ukrainian state institutions. Higher Education in Europe 34(1): 91–103.
Kushnir I (2016) The development of a system of study credits in Ukraine: The case of policy layering in the
Bologna Process. European Journal of Higher Education 7(2): 188–202.
Kuzio T (2012) Twenty years as an independent state: Ukraine’s ten logical inconsistencies. Communist and
Post-Communist Studies 45(3–4), 429–438.
McDonald JP (1992) Teaching: Making Sense of An Uncertain Craft. New York: Teachers College Press.
Marland PW (1993) A review of the literature on implications of teacher thinking research for preservice
teacher education. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 21(1): 51–63.
Marton F and Booth S (1997) Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ministry of Education and Science in Ukraine (2008) Order No 537 of the Ministry of Education and Science
of Ukraine ‘On the order of approval of textbooks, educational materials and teaching resources with
the stamps and certificates of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine’ from 17.06.2008.
Available at: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0628-08 (accessed 13 May 2019). [In Ukrainian.]
Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (2018) Letter No 1/11-8681 from 15.08.2018 on
‘Recommendations on Prevention and Detection of Academic Plagiarism in Research Work (essays,
dissertation, monographs, presentations, publications, etc.)’. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/
rada/show/v8681729-18 (accessed 12 May 2019). [In Ukrainian.]
Musteață S (2011) How to analyse textbooks: An essay on research approaches and possible consequences of
research. Available at: http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A6469/pdf (accessed 13 May 2019).
594 European Educational Research Journal 18(5)

National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine (NAPSU) (2019a) Thematic plan of applied research
of the NAPSU for 2019. Available at: http://naps.gov.ua/ua/activities/research/applications/ (accessed 4
July 2019). [In Ukrainian.]
National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine (NAPSU) (2019b) Thematic plan of fundamental
research of the NAPSU for 2019. Available at: http://naps.gov.ua/ua/activities/research/fundamental/
(accessed 4 July 2019). [In Ukrainian.]
Newman D and Paasi A (1998) Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: Boundary narratives in
political geography. Progress in Human Geography 22(2): 186–207.
Nisbet J (2002) Early textbooks in educational research: The birth of a discipline. European Educational
Research Journal 1(1): 37–44.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) Academic dishonesty – cheat-
ing and plagiarism in Ukrainian higher education in OECD. OECD Reviews of Integrity in Education:
Ukraine 2017: 143–57.
O’Keeffe L (2013) A Framework for Textbook Analysis. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/275214893_A_Framework_for_Textbook_Analysis (accessed 13 May 2019).
Oleksiyenko A (2016) Higher education reforms and center–periphery dilemmas: Ukrainian universities
between Neo-Soviet and Neo-Liberal contestations. In: Zajda J and Rust V (eds) Globalisation and
Higher Education Reforms. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp.133–148.
Osipian A (2009) Corruption and reform in higher education in Ukraine. Canadian and International
Education 38(2): 104–122.
Osipian A (2010) Corruption in the politicised university: Lessons for Ukraine’s 2010 presidential elections.
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 23(2): 101–114.
Oxford English Dictionary (2019) Available at http://www.oed.com/ (accessed 6 May 2019).
Pal’chevs’kyi SS (2005) Akmeolohiya: Navchalnyi Posibnyk dlia Studentiv Vyshchyh Navchalnyh Zakladiv
[Achmeology: Textbook for Students in Higher Educational Establishments]. Kyiv: Kondor. [In
Ukrainian.]
Parkhomenko T (2016) Yak komisiia ne pobachyla plahiat Kateryny Kyrylenko i svidomo pishla na fal-
syfikatsiyu [How the Committee did not see plagiarism in Kataryna Kyrylenko’s [work] and con-
sciously used falsification]. Ukrainska Pravda, 17 May 2016. Available at: http://life.pravda.com.ua/
columns/2016/05/17/212396/ (accessed 15 February 2018). [In Ukrainian.]
Paschenko M and Krasnoshtan I (2014) Pedahohika: Pidruchnyk [Pedagogy: Textbook]. Kyiv: Academic
Literature Centre. [In Ukrainian.]
Popkewitz T (1984) Soviet pedagogical science: Visions and contradictions. Journal of Curriculum Studies
16(2): 111–130.
Popkewitz T and Tabachnik B (1981) Soviet and American pedagogical research. In: Tabachnick B, Popkewitz
T and Szekely B (eds) Studying Teaching and Learning: Trends in Soviet and American Research. New
York: Praeger Publishers, pp.3–38.
Rosen S (1971) Education and Modernization in the USSR. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shaw M (2013) Flawed implementation or inconsistent logics? Lessons from higher education reform in
Ukraine. European Education 45(1): 7–24.
Shaw M, Chapman D and Rumyantseva N (2011) The impact of the Bologna Process on academic staff in
Ukraine. Higher Education Management and Policy 23(3): 71–91.
Silova I (2006) De-Sovietisation of Latvian textbooks made visible. European Journal of Intercultural
Studies 7(2): 35–45.
Silova I, Mead M and Palandjian G (2014) Pedagogies of space: (Re)Mapping national territories, borders,
and identities in post-Soviet textbooks. In: Williams J (ed.) (Re)constructing Memory: School Textbooks
and the Imagination of the Nation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp.103–128.
Simon B (1981) Why no pedagogy in England? In:. Simon B and Taylor W (eds) Education in the Eighties:
Central Issues. London: Batsford, pp.124–145.
Surzhyk L (2016) Psevdonauka na pototsi. [Pseudoscience on a conveyor belt]. Zderkalo tyzhnia 1078,
29 January–5 February, 2016. Available at: https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/psevdonauka-na-potoci-_.html
(accessed 15 February 2018). [In Ukrainian.]
Fim’yar et al. 595

Surzhyk L (2017) Chotyry miliardy na plahiat [Four billion on plagirism]. Zderkalo tyzhnia. 1143–1144,
20–26 May 2017. Available at: https://dt.ua/SCIENCE/chotiri-milyardi-na-plagiat-242950_.html
(accessed 15 February 2018). [In Ukrainian.]
Swanepoel S (2010) The assessment of the quality of science education textbooks: Conceptual framework
and instruments for analysis. Available at: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4041/thesis_
swanepoel_s.pdf (accessed 13 May 2019).
Sysoyeva S and Krystopchuk T (2013) Metodolohiya Naukovo-Pedahohichnykh Doslidzhen: Pidruchnyk
[Methodology of Scientific–Pedagogical Research: Textbook]. Rivne: Vydavnytstvo Oberehy.
Available at http://elibrary.kubg.edu.ua/9021/1/Metodologiya_naukovo-pedagogichnikh_doslidzhen.
pdf (accessed 16 February 2018). [In Ukranian.]
Ukrainian Educational Research Association (2016) History. Available at: https://uera.org.ua/en/about-us/
history (accessed 7 May 2019).
Ukrainian Educational Research Association (2018) Ukrainian teacher in the mirror of the all-Ukrainian
survey by TALIS methodology. Available at: https://uera.org.ua/en/node/85 (accessed 7 May 2019).
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2014) Law about higher education of Ukraine. Available at: http://zakon4.rada.
gov.ua/laws/show/1556-18 (accessed 15 February 2018). [In Ukrainian.]
Volkova M (2012) Pedahohika: Pidruchnyk [Pedagogy: Textbook], 4th edn. Kyiv: Academic Press. [In
Ukrainian.]
Watkins C and Mortimore P (1999) Pedagogy: What do we know. In: Motrimore P (ed.) Understanding
Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning. London: SAGE, pp.1–19.
Williams J (ed.) (2014) (Re)Constructing Memory: School Textbooks and the Imagination of the Nation.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
World Bank (2003) Ukraine: Education reform policy note (English). Available at: http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/348821468313765642/Ukraine-Education-reform-policy-note (accessed 15
February 2018).
Zvynyats’kivska Z (2012a) Bez komentariv. [No comment]. Available at: https://life.pravda.com.ua/col-
umns/2012/12/21/118047/ (accessed 15 February 2018). [In Ukrainian.]
Zvynyats’kivska Z (2012b) Slova, shcho pochynayut’sya z .Kh. abo novyi ukrayins’kyi Bukvar [Words
starting with ‘Kh or the new Ukrainian ABC book]. Available at: https://life.pravda.com.ua/columns/
2012/11/28/116532/ (accessed 15 February 2018). [In Ukrainian.]

Author biographies
Olena Fim’yar is a senior research associate in Educational Innovation and Reform team at the Faculty of
Education University of Cambridge, working on the issues of education reform and policy, teacher develop-
ment and student transition from school to higher education in Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Olena is also a found-
ing member of the UERA (Ukrainian Educational Research Association).
Iryna Kushnir is a Lecturer at Nottingham Institute of Education Nottingham Trent University. Iryna’s
research interests include education policy and politics in the context of globalisation, post-Soviet transition,
migration and social justice. Iryna is also a founding member of the UERA.
Mariia Vitrukh is a PhD student in Education Policy and Evaluation at Mary Lou Fulton Teacher’s College
Arizona State University. Mariia currently focuses on holistic education and forced migration of people and
nature, referring to indigenous knowledge, embodied cognition, arts-based research methods and body-work
theories and practices. Mariia actively contributed to the development of the UERA in the first three years of
its establishment.