The role of labour and production work in the process of education

Makarenko assigned a special place in the life of the educational collective to labour, combined with instruction in the fundamentals of science and a broad socio-political and moral education. His basic ideas regarding labour education may be summarized as follows:

Labour becomes an effective means of communist education only when it forms a part of the general educational process; at the same time, this has no meaning unless all children and adolescents are involved in types of socially useful work suited to their age [6, p. 23].

There must be a combination of such types of work as: compulsory participation in self-help and productive labour organized on the most modern technical basis possible; selectively performed creative technical work; and unpaid work for the common good. Only when all the above types of work are combined in the educational process do children and adolescents acquire the whole range of attitudes that permit a balanced, genuinely free development of the personality.

The pupils’ labour collective and its constituent bodies and representatives must to an ever-increasing degree be given the role of responsible organizers of their own labour activity, and a decisive role in matters of profit distribution and wages, in the use of a wide range of material and moral incentives, and in the organization of consumption [1, p. 70].

Nowadays, the ‘number one problem’ is how to provide pupils in general schools with labour training and education for life, to teach them how to make an informed choice of a career that will suit their individual inclinations and abilities and also match the demands of society. In such circumstances, this part of Makarenko’s legacy is assuming an extremely important role, both as regards the practical side of schoolchildren’s labour associations and, in particular, we suggest, as regards the organization of the corresponding educational research.

To Makarenko, production work was important in education and character formation as well as for personal development, and it became the centerpiece of his system. Makarenko admitted that it may be unusual for this type of work to lead to advanced qualifications, but it forces students to be proficient in basic academic skills, organizational issues, and work processes. His assumption was that people must always be taught good work habits, and production work leads to a better work ethic and skills such as dedication, pride, exactness, attention to detail, conscientiousness, and reliability as well as the development of soft skills such as teamwork and supervisory skills, applied math, organizational skills, creativity, and critical thinking [5, p. 67].

Work must also allow students to develop their creative impulses. People want to be creative workers, and educators are called upon to teach and enable such creative work. Makarenko asserted that all students have the basic desire to please others, to do well, and to improve themselves and that work plus classroom learning leads to a desire to want to learn more. This willingness translates into creativity and proactive behavior at work, which in turn makes people happier, more productive, and ready to accept challenges. In this context then, Makarenko was clearly in line with Lenin’s discussion of the importance of creativity and joy in work [2, p. 312].

As real learning takes place through the full inclusion in the work process, students must immediately be integrated into the production cycle of a real enterprise to become acquainted with the demands of work. It is important for creativity that students be involved in research and development and be given limited power to decide how to execute their tasks – simply performing repetitive production tasks, as important as it may be to do those without complaining, runs counter to a desire to develop qualified workers [3, p. 219]. Students then expand their knowledge, develop mastery in certain skills, find an occupational niche for themselves, develop a positive and creative attitude toward work, and acquire both access to and a desire to engage in further education.

4. Perspectives in Makarenko’s pedagogy

Makarenko’s pedagogy can best be defined by his idea of perspectives. Two conditions have to apply to these perspectives: they must be work perspectives, and they must be

realistic and reachable considering the students’ abilities. Makarenko’s basic idea is that students will learn better and develop a more positive attitude toward work in general if they always have something to look forward to, if there is a positive outcome from their efforts, and if they can feel pride in their accomplishments. Developing and relishing such feelings does not come naturally and must be taught. Furthermore, perspectives must always be extended; more complex and valuable perspectives must be built on already existing ones, and instructors must be keenly aware of the right time when a particular student needs a new challenge to keep educational momentum going.

In the Gorki Colony, Makarenko first started his students on near perspectives, tasks that would lead to quick results such as peeling potatoes to help prepare a meal for everyone or cleaning a dormitory; they then graduated to middle perspectives such as helping plan an event or a trip; and finally he hoped for the development of far perspectives, an understanding that sustained effort was necessary for social and economic development that would benefit everyone in the future. Being given the opportunity to develop new and more advanced perspectives for themselves, Makarenko argued, will encourage many to apply themselves to their studies and go beyond their original educational aspirations for the benefit of society as a whole [4, p. 89].

Decisions on perspectives are made in conjunction with students, and if students do not agree with the perspectives set for them, they should not be enforced. Perspectives allow a more student-centered approach to teaching since instructors must design perspectives and goals individually for each student and link them to societal values in a way that motivates this particular student. Schools that shield students from such delayed gratification and effort will lead not to a self-actualized person but to an alienated one. To accomplish such an approach, faculty members must be highly qualified and up to date in their field, something emphasized by Makarenko, who was clear that students respect only those instructors or mentors who are confident, precise, knowledgeable, highly skilled, good with their hands, and willing to lead by example to teach work ethic [5, p. 73].

However, students will become overwhelmed if perspectives are too complex right from the beginning. A workplace experience can help students make the transition from simple to more complex tasks and also show them new perspectives that they may not have known existed for them. Students may begin carpentry work by sanding chair legs, graduate to drilling holes and assembling chairs, and finally work on measuring wood and operating the saw. Students determine the transition to a more complex step by the quality of their work and their desire to learn more; sanding, for example, may develop an interest in carpentry or lead to a distaste, but without this original work, students will never be able to make informed decisions about their occupational futures.

СONCLUSIONS

Makarenko was one of the first Soviet educators to urge that the activities of various educational institutions – i. e., the school, the family, clubs, public organizations, production collectives and the community existing at the place of residence – should be integrated. In this connection, he laid special emphasis on the leading role of the school as an educational and methods center having the most highly qualified and proficient educational staff.

It may seem strange that the idea of an educator from an authoritarian communist state can be of any use in the twenty-first century, but Makarenko did in his own way what workforce education is called on to do today. With the changes in the workplace as the result of globalization, it is hard to say if Makarenko’s usefulness comes from the fact that he was ahead of his time or that globalization created accidental parallels between then and now. In both cases, workers need skills and education levels they have never needed before to remain competitive, and many workers who in the past may have never even considered earning a college degree or even completing high school now need to do so to remain competitive in the job market. Makarenko had a student population that also needed to experience how education could lead to better lives personally and economically, and therefore, the bases of his findings have value for today. Makarenko’s plan was to equip students to raise their standard of living in an impoverished and devastated country. According to Smith, we have a similar task in helping some people raise their standard of living and others maintain it.

What does become clear in Makarenko’s writings is that despite his political agenda, he had a keen insight into human nature and workplace education needs, and he based his conclusions not on theory but strictly on practice, on what worked. For him, production work, perspectives, and the appropriate relationship between school and work served to turn around young people whom many others had given up on. Therefore, Makarenko’s principles deserve to be revisited to guide today’s efforts in designing workforce education programs for young people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Характеристика джерела	Оформлення
Книжкові видання
Один автор	1. Бобрицкая В. И. А. С. Макаренко. Жизнь и педагогическая деятельность / В. И. Бобрицкая. – Полтава, 1991. – 190 с. 2. Макаренко А. С. Избранные произведения : В 3 т. / А. С. Макаренко. – К. : Рад. школа, 1983. – 517 с. 3. Макаренко А. С. Педагогические сочинения : В 8 т. / А. С. Макаренко. – М., 1983. – Т. 1. – 453 с. 4. Фролов А. А. А. С. Макаренко: основы педагогической системы / А. А. Фролов. – Горький, 1990. – 116 с. 5. Ярмаченко Н. Д. Педагогическая деятельность и творческое наследие А. С. Макаренко : Кн. для учителя / Н. Д. Ярмаченко. – К. : Рад. Україна, 1989. – 191 с.
Частина книги, періодичного, продовжуваного видання
Один автор	6. Baker B. Review Article. Anton Makarenko and the idea of the Collective // Educational theory. – 1968. – Vol. 18. – № 3. – P. 20. 7. Носовець Н. М. Основні ідеї гуманізації трудового виховання в педагогічній спадщині А. С. Макаренка / Н. М. Носовець // Організація та зміст професійної підготовки в умовах національної системи освіти. – Харків : Книж. видав. Каравела. – 1999. – С. 26-31.