Verbally Sensitive Didactic Theory of L. V. Zankova
Leonid Vladimirovich Zankov developed an original concept of teaching primary school pupils. In creative terms, he followed LS Vygotsky, attaching great importance to the word as a didactic concept. He devoted equally great attention to sensory cognition, which is especially clearly manifested in the principle of clarity. In this he recognized the authority of Pestalozzi. Two of Zankov's selected attitudes - accents on words and feelings - is the keynote of all his works. They should be added to the general development of schoolchildren.
We can single out the following basic principles of LV Zankov's theory: learning at a high level of complexity; studying the material at a rapid pace; the leading role of theoretical knowledge; awareness of the learning process by schoolchildren; development of all students, regardless of their level of development.
Conclusions of L. V. Zankov do not cause any special objections. But, of course, he associated with each of them some specific content. It is of particular interest.
The principle of learning at a high level of complexity implies the presence of a certain tension in learning. New knowledge is not acquired automatically, it involves the activation of students' abilities. Zankov took into account that the problems to be solved should be feasible for students.
The principle of studying the material at a rapid pace is directed against trampling in place & quot ;. In this regard, new didactic units are included in a variety of conceptual links. The more such connections, the higher the speed of passing the training material.
The principle of the leading role of theoretical knowledge is understood by Zankov as an effective combination of rational and sensory cognition. The researcher had in mind an understanding of the essential links, which is impossible without appropriate generalizations and, consequently, concepts. In our opinion, any knowledge is theoretical. In view of this, it is wrong to insist on the leading role of theoretical knowledge. It would be more correct to introduce a difference between more and less developed theories.
The principle of students' understanding of the doctrine is understood as comprehension of the most developed theories from among those that are accessible to them with an appropriate degree of complexity.
The principle of development of all students is directed against belittling the capabilities of some of them. To some extent, any student is capable of development. Zankov advocated developing education.
Thus, all five principles of the didactic system of L. V. Zankov deserve approval. Somewhat doubtful is his attitude toward the universal development of students, by which he understood the development of the mind, will and feelings. Always, when it comes to generalities, you should be on your guard. The fact is that the general does not exist separately from the specific. As soon as the general begins to be given independent significance, immediately there are conjectures. What is, for example, the mind? Unknown. Seeking a certain clarity in the characterization of the mind, one can consider, for example, the ways students comprehend a particular academic subject. In this case, apparently, it is permissible to interpret the mind as a measure of comprehension of conceptual transitions in the composition of the relevant academic subject. But this is a characteristic not of the general, but of the specific development of the student.
The teacher has two options for improving students: teaching subjects and identifying interdisciplinary links between them. There is simply no general. If the two subjects had something in common, they would in part coincide with each other. But this would mean their known identification, which is unacceptable. In our opinion, it should not be about the general, but about the harmonious multilateral development of students, which is achieved in a transdisciplinary approach.
Finally, let us turn to the most controversial part of LV Zankov's theory - to his conception of the conceptual arrangement of scientific knowledge. As already noted, he himself attached great importance to sensory cognition and words. Zankov believed that theoretical generalizations are possible only after students acquire sensory-practical experience. Such an attitude caused a sharp objection from VV Davydov. Noting the achievements of Zankov's school, he also treated them critically. "In our opinion," he wrote, "this system did not presuppose a way out of empirical consciousness and thinking, although one of its principles was oriented toward mastering theoretical knowledge. However, from the logical and psychological point of view, it was not thoroughly elaborated. The term "theoretical knowledge" in the system
L. V. Zankov did not receive any detailed interpretation. Consideration of the content of many teaching aids, prepared by his team, shows that for all its uniqueness, the line for the deployment of theoretical knowledge proper (in our understanding of them) has not been carried out in it. The content of these benefits remains empiricutilitarnym & quot ;. Davydov did not agree with Zankov's objection, according to which the very splitting into theoretical and empirical cognition is deeply erroneous. Is Davidov's criticism worthy of Zankov's worth?
It seems that Zankov was right, noting that the theoretical/empirical dichotomy is untenable. However, recognizing the theoretical status of empirical knowledge, it is necessary to clearly show the structure of the theory. It was on this quite rightly insisted V. V. Davydov, demanding an indication of the appropriate method. Davidov himself believed that this method is an ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Zankov did not give his scientific method a name. In our opinion, in fact, he was guided by the method of ascent from the concrete to the abstract, which is clearly not enough for a detailed expression of the conceptual structure of any science and the corresponding academic subject.
1. LV Zankov advanced the actual principles of pedagogical theory.
2. The method of ascent from concrete to abstract is not sufficient for expressing the true wealth of conceptual transitions.
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