![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Resumen
El dossier que se inicia con este artículo pretende contribuir a abrir un debate constructive y sosegado sobre la intervención psicopedagógica en el sistema educativo obligatorio. La progresiva descentralización y el asentamiento de las administraciones autonómicas ha provocado la emergencia de serviciosy organismos para la intervención psicopedagógica que, aunque comparten determinados rasgos, se diferencian también en múltiples e importantes aspectos, muchas veces poco conocidos. En este sentido, sostenemos—y esta es una de las tesis centrales de este artículo—que la caracterización que se realice de los servicios psicopedagógicos, además de responder a análisis y presiones de tipo económico, político, académico y social, es inseparable de las finalidades que se atribuyan al sistema educativo, de las concepciones que se sustenten sobre el aprendizaje, la enseñanza y su impacto en el desarrollo de las personas, y responde a un conjunto de formulaciones y supuestos sobre la propia intervención. En este contexto, y junto a otras cuestiones polémicas, en este trabajo se presentan y discuten distintas cuestiones relativas a la delimitación del ámbito profesional de los psicopedagogos que trabajan en la escuela, a las tareas propias de la intervención psicopedagógica, y a los enfoques y modelos de intervención psicopedagógica.
Abstract
The present monograph, starting with this paper, seeks to contribute to opening up a constructive debate on psychopedagogical intervention in the compulsory school system. The gradual decentralization of the school system and the consolidation of regional autonomous governments has led to the emergence of services and bodies set up to design and supervise psychopedagogical intervention. These services are similar in many ways, but also have multiple distinctive features, some of which are often largely unknown. We believe—and this is one of the main tenets of this article—that the characterization of psychopedagogical services, in addition to responding to analyses and pressures of an economic, political, academic, and social nature, is inseparable from the educational system's established objectives, from the concepts of teaching and learning and their impact on personal development, and responds to a set of formulations and assumptions regarding the intervention itself. In this context, and together with other controversial questions, the study presents and discusses various issues involving the delimitation of the professional environment of psychopedagogues working in schools, the tasks of psychopedagogical intervention, and different intervention approaches and models.
Extended Summary
The aim of this monograph, beginning with this article, is to contribute to opening up a constructive debate on psychopedagogical intervention in the compulsory school education system. The gradual decentralization of the school system and the consolidation of regional autonomous governments has led to the emergence of services and bodies set up to design and supervise psychopedagogical intervention. These services are similar in many ways, but also have multiple distinctive features, some of which are often largely unknown. We believe—and this is one of the main tenets of this article—that the characterization of psychopedagogical services, in addition to responding to analyses and pressures of an economic, political, academic, and social nature, is inseparable from the educational system's established objectives, from the concepts of teaching and learning and their impact on personal development, and responds to a set of formulations and assumptions regarding the intervention itself. Certain options that vary in terms of the aspects mentioned are the origin of other equally important differences, such as: 1) differences relating to the training considered necessary for intervention professionals; 2) the ideal setting in the school centre; 3) the role assigned to psychopedagogues together with the role that they perform and the criteria used for evaluating priorities; and 4) differences in the intervention «model» itself.
The article reflects on some of these aspects, examining the delimitation of the professional environment, the specific tasks involved in psychopedagogical intervention, intervention approaches and models, and other controversial issues.
The origin of psychopedagogy as a professional field, that is the product of a process of expansion and confluence between psychological and pedagogical traditions, is the first consideration relating to the delimitation of the professional environment. In this formal education setting, psychopedagogical intervention is defined as a set of tasks and activities that psychopedagogues perform in conjunction with other members of the teaching staff, actions that aim to promote diversification in teaching, which bears in mind the needs of a variety of users, and quality. In agreement with this conception of intervention, advising and consulting procedures are considered processes of shared construction, involving psychopedagogues and other professionals, in which each member draws on his or her own specific knowledge, experiences, and points of view in an attempt to meet the joint objectives proposed.
This conception of psychopedagogical intervention services as specialist resources of guidance in quality education has multiplied the functions and tasks that these services now take on. These tasks are located at points along the continuum established in four different dimensions: 1) intervention priorities; 2) different types of intervention; 3) degree of students' involvement; and 4) the ideal intervention context (Coll, 1989). The tasks prescribed by government bodies for psychopedagogical intervention services are vary a good deal, and not all professionals approach them in the same way. Among the factors influencing practical aspects of intervention—the structure and curriculum of the educational system—are: 1) the specific characteristics of the schools where the intervention takes place; 2) the existence of other intervention structures; 3) expectations regarding intervention; and 4) the training received by professionals responsible for the intervention. There is no doubt that the intervention «model» has an importance of its own. The difficult question of intervention models is basicaly approached from a professional perspective, and on the basis of the distinction between educational and clinical approaches. The article assumes, on the one hand, the selection of an educational approach considered to be more in line with the aims of the school and the intervention itself. On the other, the defence of a constructivist educational model of intervention, based on the constructivist conception of school learning and teaching as a psychological frame of reference to understand teaching and learning processes (Coll, 1990; 1997).
Finally, we comment briefly on other aspects that are currently the object of debate. First, we refer to the supposed invisivility of psychopedagogical intervention, underlining the fact that some schools are not clearly aware of the benefits of a psychopedagogic consultant's participation. In this regard, we list a number of factors that may at least in part account for this phenomenon. Secondly, we note the importance of offering in-training to consultants, stressing the relevance of the debate on the type of training and the materials and contents that should go into it. Finally, we stress the need to evaluate psychopedagogical intervention—without ignoring the difficulties involved; as evaluating the impact of the intervention itself is a prerequisite for its reorientation and improvement.