Volume/Issue :

Article type :

Original article

Page No :

13-20

Abstract :

A human being as biosocial essence is tightly interrelated with nature and society. In the history of relations between human and nature it appeared in different forms and levels – a human being as a child, brother and the lord of it. Qualitatively new relations between the human being and nature must be established in the 21st century. Ecological problems, the expiration of natural resources, urbanization and other major aspects of modern life require a new approach to the relations between the human being and nature. The levels of relations between the human being and nature have always remained different: first, as a child of nature (a primitive man or a child glorifying nature), then as a brother of nature (little understanding nature and communicating with it) and finally, the human being as the lord of nature (trying to rule and change nature). In the 19th and 20th centuries the latter attitude was clearly reflected by natural science positivism, Marxism, technocratic utilitarianism and many other conceptions that preach the use of nature, the reconstruction of natural environment, consumerism with nature. In the 20th century the development of countries overmuch polarized towards technical, manufacturing and consumables enlargement determined a global ecological crisis. Modern science is actively looking for effective ways to solve ecological problems. The scores of the current ecological situation are being revealed. One of the most important reasons of the current situation is the factor that modern human beings have lost spiritual relations with environment. Mainly, the ecological crisis is being described as the crisis of the human itself including his consciousness, thinking, cultural environment and moral. The tendency that is prevailing today shows nature being qualified as a technocratic, urban, pragmatic value, a technological object which is employed in the process of progress. The following propositions can be specified: • Effective natural science education require conformable psychological substantiation; • Interaction with Nature varies and is specific within different periods of life; • The mission of the teacher is to wisely manage a developing process of “true” interaction with nature; • At all levels of the system of natural science education /aspects of the content of education and practical activity/ must continuously be accomplished the comprehension of the unity of living and inanimate nature; • Formation of the personal responsibility of young generation for future our planet /state of environment/- one of the priority tasks in the sphere science and technology education; • The content of science and technology education must include the analysis of reasons and consequences of contradictions in the system "nature-man- society". All our relations with nature turn out to be problematic. Formation of harmonic relations between nature and mankind becomes an important goal. It is obvious that in any activity one cannot exclusively rely on knowledge and mind, because these are not absolute values. It is understood that we cannot become the rulers over nature. A sphere of natural science developing is very wide, complicated and diversed, thus it requires a new point of view and common efforts of professionals from various areas. Rising global problems are general trouble all of us because there isn't any problem isolated from one another. The solution of them is possible when problems are being thoroughnessly analysed closely linking its interpendention.

Keywords :

natural science education, interaction with nature, technological education, modern society

References :

Gedrovics J. (2000). Subject integration – goal or tool? In.: Today`s Reforms for Tomorrow`s School`s (ATEE Spring University). Klaipėda, p. 76–80.
Lamanauskas V. (1998). Integrated Natural Sciences Teaching by Applying Didactic Differentiation. Vilnius.
Lamanauskas V. (2002). Some aspects of motivation of interaction with nature. Journal of Baltic Science Education, No.2, p. 40–49.
Lamanauskas V. (2004). Ugdymas: aksiomatinis ir sisteminis aspektai. Vilnius
Powell Janet C., Anderson Ronald D. Changing teachers` practice: curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 2002, Vol. 37, p. 107.
Qualter, A. (1999). How did you get to be a good primary science teacher? Westminster Studies in Education, Vol. 22, p. 75–86.
Sjøberg S. (2002). Three Contributions to Science Education. Oslo.
Ламанаускас В. Райлене Л. (2000). Естественно-научное воспитание и подготовка учителей: некоторые методологические аспекты. В кн.: Наука и образование на пороге 3 тысячелетия-The Science and Education on the Threshold of the 3rd Millennium (International Congress). Minsk, Kn. 2, p. 61–63.
Лисов Н.Д. (2000). Теоретические основы построения школьного курса биологии. Минск.
Маслова Н.В. (2002). Ноосферное образование. Москва
Мельник, Э.Л., Корожнева Л. (2003). Интегрированное обучение в начальной школе. Санкт-Петербург: Каро.
Мельник Э.Л. (2007). Педагогическая ориентация младших школьников в окружающей среде: методологические основы. Петрозаводск: КГПУ.
Солопов Е.Ф. (1999). Концепции современного естествознания. Москва.

Cite as :

Lamanauskas, V. (2007). Nekotorye metodologicheskie idei v sfere otnoshenija cheloveka s prirodoj [Some methodological ideas in the sphere of human interaction with nature]. Gamtamokslinis ugdymas / Natural Science Education, 4(3), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.48127/gu-nse/07.4.13b