Psychological features of the class-lesson form of organization of learning activities
The problem of the impact of the class-curricular form of organization of educational activities on the development of cognitive abilities of students is discussed by researchers of different specialties. Before highlighting the various approaches, let us designate a number of problems arising in connection with this.
One of these is that the terms class and lesson even in the special literature are often treated very widely and are filled with the content unusual for them. This happens when they are considered as an indispensable attribute of educational practice. If the lesson and class we will consider professionally, then we must admit that they are nothing more than elements of a class-lesson system. And it is possible such an organization of school life and educational activity, in which no "classes" and no lessons no, and not expected.
It is not difficult to notice that the class-lesson form of organization of educational activity is not the main one, as stated in our textbooks on the theory of education, the authors are clearly modest - it dominates in our schools completely and can be called the only one. And for most professionals and non-specialists, this state of affairs seems so natural that they can not imagine, which can be somehow different.
A lot of books and articles are written about how the class-lesson system contributes and how it impedes the development of the intellectual and creative abilities of the child. Moreover, most of these analytical works contain criticism that is constructive in nature, as well as curious and instructive information from the history of pedagogy and school (RB Vendrovskaya, VM Klarin, AI Piskunov, and others); constructive proposals for mitigating the negative aspects of the functioning of this system (SP Baranov, I. Ya. Lerner, MI Makhmutov, S. Yu. Kurganov, MN Skatkin, DB El'konin, and others) very affective alternative forms of organization of instruction in the domestic school (VK Dyachenko).
It is well known that in conditions of a class-less system, a higher education of some children than others is discouraged. Still its founder, J. A. Komensky, wrote that the difference of abilities is nothing more than a deviation from natural harmony or its lack. According to him, the method he proposed is "adapted to average abilities to contain the most gifted and customize sluggish".
Psychologists and educators as early as the beginning of the 20th century. many criticized the class-based system and actively worked towards the creation of alternative forms of organization of training. Their work often emphasizes the idea that the class-lesson system, being a product of the medieval, ecclesiastical, "monastic school", by its whole design is not oriented toward the creative interaction of the pupil and the teacher, but is adapted to transfer to the students ready-made knowledge perceived by faith . With its help, children are brought up with uncreative thinking, and most of all - passive submission to authority and uncritical thought.
Since then, little has changed in this regard. This position is expressed in the works of many authors. Under such a system, they say, the teacher says, and the students listen, the teacher teaches, inspires, preaches, and the students passively listen, perceive and assimilate other people's words, thoughts and knowledge. Self-study and creativity in the class-lesson system, there is no place. And since knowledge, as a result of using this organizational chart, is given to children with great difficulty, then the "awards" are attracted to help; and "penalties", threats and intimidation.
These statements are not without maximalism, it is difficult not to admit that in many respects they are just. Of course, one can argue that the effectiveness of a particular lesson and the implementation of a class-lesson system as a whole largely depend on the teacher's talent, the degree of his interest in his work, the conformity of the tasks presented to the students' real possibilities and many, many private circumstances. But at the same time we must understand that these, undoubtedly, great variational possibilities are essentially limited to the very specificity of the class-lesson system as a very peculiar organizational and pedagogical technology. Much of what is done by talented teachers within the framework of this system is done by them not because it presupposes the very form of the organization of educational activity, but in spite of it.
So, the individualization of learning, one of the main directions in the solution of the task of teaching and educating a creative personality, in conditions of a class-lesson system becomes possible only with the actual destruction of the specific, organizational foundations of this system. Conducting educational research, and therefore, the real, and not "slogan" research or "problem training", can not practically be realized with such a training organization. All this usually moves into the sphere of after-hours, extra-curricular activities, or "falls on the shoulders" institutions additional education .
Many scientists noted that this system is difficult to suspect in the planting of giftedness, increased care for the talents and abilities of children, increasing the diversity and identity of human characters. This approach to the organization of learning activities is basically a unifying, conveyor principle & quot ;. And this is dictated by the most cool-lesson system as a way of organizing training. The differences in the level of preparation and the manifestation of intellectual and creative abilities that occur and are subsequently manifested by people in different spheres of life and activity, rather, should be regarded as "residual phenomena." If I could well put class-lesson system of training of traditional type, talent would be completely leveled, and no talent at all could be saved.
Critics of the class-lesson system rightly blame her for the fact that it is aimed at the unification of the individual. This is accomplished in various ways: by leveling individual differences and abilities, by cultivating imitative activity, by the absence of real conditions for the development of creative thinking and even the development of collectivism (DB El'konin, VK Dyachenko, and others). The relatively rigid adherence to the fundamental foundations of the class-curricular form of organization of educational activity in the domestic education system is not due to its "high efficiency", as it was customarily claimed in the "Soviet era", and not by national cultural and educational traditions, as it is customary to say now . The main reason is the inertia of thinking of the majority of teachers and organizers of the education system.
The main point of the preservation of this form of organization of education lies in the primordial, almost "medieval" option - orientation on "totalitarian thinking", as the main ideological value that dominated for a long time at the level of state ideology. Constantly sounding in parallel with this slogans about the "upbringing of the creative personality," and as a consequence, calls for the "active use of heuristic teaching methods", "research approach", "problematic learning" - nothing more than a disguise of the goals of the true. This style of behavior, usually referred to at the level of "everyday consciousness" "double morale", is very characteristic of totalitarian regimes.
The main ways of mitigating the above-mentioned negative aspects of the class-curricular form of organization of educational activity are the differentiation and individualization of instruction considered in the previous sections. But in history there are many other ways of organizing training. In modern teaching theory, this problem is being developed quite intensively.
The issues that are of interest to us in this case are traditionally considered in the context of research on the problems of joint learning activity and collective creativity. The problems of joint educational activity are among the rather popular and sufficiently developed in the domestic psychology and pedagogy (MD Vinogradova, IB Pervin, LI Umansky, and others). The problem of collective creativity in the teaching process both in the national pedagogical psychology and in pedagogy is much less developed.
However, we can not fail to note the trend of growth in its popularity. In literature on the theory and practice of teaching, it is increasingly noted that creative interaction with like-minded people and opponents often has a stimulating effect on the productivity of the creative process and on the development of the creative qualities of the individual.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay