Development of ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics

Cover Page

Abstract


It is crucial for teachers of Russian as a foreign language to investigate the way of development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics. Thereby, they can better understand the process of evolution of the scientific thought, its current state and define its prospects. It helps to build a modern theory of teaching that has a practical value. The purpose of this research is to describe the development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics, to identify its stages and to analyze the future prospects for the development of the theory of teaching, including the methods of teaching Russian as a foreign language. The research was based on about 80 theoretical works devoted to didactics and linguodidactics and practical guides for teachers, including manuals for teachers of Russian as a foreign language. The author used the methods of conceptual and contextual analysis, and the historical and descriptive research method. Analyzing the sources, the researcher identified three stages of the development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics. When the ideas about the teaching method originated (17th-19th centuries), this concept was not defined. However, the term “teaching method” was actively used, as it referred both to the teaching process and to the teacher’s actions in the classroom. At the stage of formation of scientific ideas about the teaching method (20th century), researchers compiled and analyzed empirical data. Different definitions and classifications of the teaching methods were proposed and various theories of teaching methods were developed. At the stage of critical rethinking (21th century), a new theory of teaching was introduced. It included the description of the main features of teaching methods, their functional classification, and recommendations on how to choose and develop a teaching method. The term “teaching method” is polysemantic, which causes a number of problems. If researchers manage to clearly define this term, a great contribution will be made not only to didactics and linguodidactics, but also to the theory of teaching Russian as a foreign language.


Full Text

Introduction The development of the methods of teaching Russian as a foreign language depends on such traditional basic sciences as linguistics, psychology and pedagogy (especially, didactics - a section of pedagogy devoted to the general teaching theory). It should be noted that the linguistic foundations of teaching methods have been developed very well in comparison with the psychological and didactic aspects. Methodologists borrow basic concepts mainly from didactics. Moreover, these concepts are not changed and no critical analysis is carried out. The most interesting point of contact between didactics and methods of teaching Russian as a foreign language is the concept of teaching method. Historically, in these sciences the ideas about the methods of teaching are different (the article deals with this problem). The methods of teaching Russian as a first language are based on the didactic traditions, while teachers of Russian as a second language use traditional foreign language teaching methods. Undoubtedly, teachers of Russian as a foreign language take into consideration the current situation, the evolution of ideas about the teaching methods and the prospects for development of these ideas. This emphasizes the relevance of the research devoted to the analysis of the development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics. Though, the concept of teaching method was one of the first concepts of didactics, it still needs to be considered and thoroughly analyzed. There are many descriptions of teaching methods in didactics (Babanskii, 1985; Golant, 1957; Lemberg, 1958, et al.) and in linguodidactics (Kapitonova, Shchukin, 1979; Rakhmanov, 1972; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards, Rodgers, 2001, et al.). However, the definitions of this concept are different, and in some works this term is not considered. To understand what the researchers implied referring to the concept of teaching method, we carried out the analysis of specific examples. There are not so many theoretical works in which the authors analyze the essence of the concept of teaching method (Aleksyuk, 1973; Babanskii, 1985; Kazakevich, 1998; Lerner, 1981; Sarantsev, 1988; Anthony, 1963, et al.). The researchers do not find the solutions to all the problems related to the scientific analysis of the methods. Unlike the concepts “teaching principle” and “teaching tool”, the term “teaching method” is polysemantic, which makes the process of development of teaching theory more complicated. However, the authors of the theoretical works have never paid much attention to the problem of polysemy of this term. In addition, it has never been mentioned that the problem has existed for several centuries and no one has proposed to solve the problem of polysemy of “teaching method” by conducting historical and pedagogical research. To get the idea of evolution of the didactic and linguodidactic thought, to analyze its current state and define its scientific prospects, it is crucial to study the process of development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics. It will contribute to the development of the modern theory of teaching, which, like any didactic theory, should be focused on the practical activities of teachers, including the professional practice of teachers of Russian as a foreign language. Consequently, this study has a practical value. Purpose The purpose of the study is to describe the process of development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics, to identify the stages of this process and to outline the prospects for further theoretical research in the field of teaching Russian as a foreign language. Methods and materials The research was based on the theoretical works in the field of didactics and linguodidactics (monographs, dissertations), showing the evolution of scientists' views on the essence of the concept of teaching method. Apart from that, the study was based on practical guides on didactics and linguodidactics for teachers (which contain the “Teaching methods” section), and manuals devoted to the system description and history of the development of teaching methods (about 80 sources in Russian, English, French and Italian were analyzed). Since in these sources the object of the analysis was the concept of teaching method, special attention was paid to its definitions and descriptions, characterizing its main features that distinguish it from related terms. In the study the following research methods were used: · a method of conceptual analysis to characterize the relationship between the concept of teaching method and other didactic concepts. The existing definitions of this concept were also analyzed; · a method of contextual analysis to define the meaning of the term “teaching method” in didactic and linguodidactic texts; · a historical and descriptive method to present the material in chronological order. This method was combined with the methods of analysis, comparison, generalization and systematization of data. Results The data obtained in the course of research made it possible to characterize the ideas about the teaching method presented in 80 works on didactics and linguodidactics (from the 17th century until the present). The definitions of the “teaching method” as well as its descriptions were analyzed. In case some didactic or linguodidactic texts contained no definition of the term “teaching method”, we analyzed how this concept was used in various contexts. Three different stages of the development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics were identified. According to the evidence, the stage when the ideas about the teaching methods originated, lasted from the 17th century (the works by J.A. Comenius) until the 19th century. At that period, the concept of teaching method was actively used, but it was not defined and analyzed. The scientific analysis of the concept was carried out only in the 20th century, and as a result, various definitions and classifications of teaching methods were introduced. It was the stage of formation of scientific ideas about the teaching method. The third stage, the stage of critical rethinking (21st century), started when there was a crisis in the theory of teaching methods. At this stage, a critical analysis of the accumulated data was carried out, and researchers tried to dispel the myths about the theory of teaching methods. A great contribution was made by I.L. Sadovskaya (Sadovskaya, 2008). There is reason to believe that at this stage a more rational theory of teaching will be finally proposed. In the course of the study, it was found out that at the three stages of the development of ideas about the teaching method the definition of this concept was ambiguous: the term “teaching method” referred both to the teaching process and to the teacher’s actions in the classroom. In the methodology of teaching Russian as a foreign language the concept of teaching method was also polysemantic. Until the 1960s this concept was mostly applied when the teacher’s actions in the classroom were analyzed. In the 1960s the methods of teaching foreign languages (developed both in the USSR and abroad) were taken into consideration, and the concept “method” was defined as a specific direction in language teaching. A.N. Shchukin, one of the outstanding experts in the field of teaching Russian as a foreign language, used the concept of teaching method in different contexts, which proves that this term was ambiguous. Discussion Let us characterize the three stages of the development of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics. 1. The stage of generation of ideas about the teaching method (17th-19th centuries). The word “method” is a general scientific term, which means a kind of activity or an idea about this activity. It was widely used in Western European scientific literature after the book by R. Descartes was published (“Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la verité dans les sciences” (Dekart, 2015)). M.I. Vladislavlev pointed out that this term had been used earlier, in the 14th century, in the works of the representatives of the school of Raymundus Lullius (1235-1315) (Vladislavlev, 1872: 142). The term “method” has been widely used in didactics and linguodidactics since the middle of the 17th century, after the works by J.A. Comenius were published. Special attention was paid to his book “Methodus linguarum novissima” (The Newest Methods of Teaching Languages, 1649) (Comenius, 2005). Nevertheless, in their works, neither J.A. Comenius nor his followers defined the term “teaching method”. Probably, the researchers believed that the term was clear and there was no need to define it. In the books on didactics and linguodidactics written in the 17th-19th centuries, various teaching methods were described. If we analyze these descriptions, we can understand what the authors implied when they used the term “method”. The first period of the development of the ideas about the teaching method was specific as this concept was defined in two different ways: · the term “teaching method” was used to characterize the teacher’s activity. It was considered as a conceptual approach that determined the course of this activity and described its various aspects. In didactics such methods included the acroamatic method, the method used to present the course material, and the erothematic method, i.e. the question-answer method, when the teacher asked students leading questions when he explained the material to them (Evstafiev, 1879) (in modern times such methods are used by university teachers giving lectures and seminars). Another method of that kind is Joseph Jacotot’s universal teaching method (Gugel, 1834). The methods of teaching foreign languages included the methods proposed by Ohlendorf, An, Gaspey - Otto - Sauer and the methods introduced within the Reform period in the 1870s-1890s (i.e. natural, direction methods, etc.); · the term “teaching method” was used to refer to the teacher’s actions in the classroom. For example, in the 18th century the didactic guides for teachers of public schools of the Russian Empire described five teaching methods: the method of instructions, the method of reading, the method of questioning, the tabular method and the alphabetic method (Rukovodstvo.., 1783). The authors of linguodidactic works described the methods of teaching reading and writing, vocabulary and grammar, speaking skills, etc. These two different definitions in many respects determined the development of the ideas about the teaching method. 1. The stage of formation of scientific ideas about the teaching method (20th century). The scientists of the 1920s who were known for their creativity made a great contribution to Russian didactics. Although in the 1930s the scientific achievements in the sphere of teaching were criticized, they gave a powerful impetus to the further development of didactics. It was crucial to give scientific credence to the categories of didactics, including the method of teaching. In the 1920s scientific works on general teaching methods and specific teaching techniques were published (Avtukhov, 1928; Vsesvyatskii, 1924; Shulman, 1929). In addition, the teaching methods were grouped into verbal, illustrative and motor methods (Avtukhov, 1928), abstract subject and specific methods (Shulman, 1929), methods of obtained knowledge and methods of search (Vsesvyatskii, 1924). Innovative pedagogical ideas of the 1920s were developed in the 1950s-1980s. However, the problem of the teaching method was so significant that it was constantly raised in the journal “Soviet Pedagogy” (in the late 1950s, and in the 1960s-1970s). Later, in the 1970s-1980s, the authors discussed the methods of teaching a second language in the journal “Russian Language in a National School”. In the 1950s manuals on various teaching methods were published (Golant, 1957; Lemberg, 1958; Lordkipanidze, 1957, et al.). During the second period of development of the ideas about the teaching method, empirical data were compiled, and researchers aspired to provide a certain theoretical basis. Methodologists made attempts to find characteristic features of the concept “teaching method” that would help to scientifically define this term. The second period of the development of the ideas about the teaching method was also characterized by two coexisting basic didactic approaches to understanding the meaning of the concept: o the method was associated with the whole learning process: it was considered as a path from ignorance to knowledge (Vsesvyatskii, 1924), as an activity of a teacher and students (Zaichenko, 1956), as a model of activity in the classroom (Lerner, 1981), as a methodological concept (Shaporinskii, 1958); o the method was associated with the activities of the teacher and students in the classroom: it was considered as an activity plan (Danilov, 1956), as a combination of teaching methods (Rubinshtejn, 1927). Analyzing the works on didactics and pedagogical textbooks, we concluded that the second approach dominated in the didactics in the 20th century. Nevertheless, some researchers proposed a broader definition related to both the approaches. So, they defined the concept “teaching method” as a way of interaction between a teacher and students aimed at solving the problems associated with the processes of learning, upbringing and development of students’ abilities (Babanskii, 1985; Verzilin, 1957; Golant, 1957, et al.). Although this definition of the concept was the most common in the works on didactics, it cannot be accepted for a number of reasons. First of all, if “method” is defined as a “way”, it is part of a logical or semantic circle (Kazakevich, 1998: 43). Secondly, this definition of the “teaching method” is related to the definition of the “educational process” which is an interaction between a teacher and students aimed at solving the problems associated with the processes of learning, upbringing and development of students’ abilities. As far as the concept “teaching method” is concerned, such a definition is completely uninformative and meaningless like the following definitions which sound pointless as well. “Learning content is a content of interaction between a teacher and students”. “A training tool is a tool for interaction between a teacher and students”. “Learning outcomes are the outcomes of interaction between a teacher and students”, etc. In the 20th century, in Russian linguodidactics the same two didactic approaches to the definition of the teaching method were used. Nevertheless, in the methodology of native language teaching, the method is more often associated with the activities of the teacher in the classroom, while in the methodology of foreign language teaching it is related to the whole learning process and “the method” is defined as a direction in language teaching (Kapitonova, Shchukin, 1979), as a methodological concept (Esadzhanyan, 1980), or as a model of activity in the classroom (Lyakhovitskii, 1981). Since the authors of didactic and linguodidactic works give different definitions to the term “teaching method”, both teachers and researchers face a number of problems, as a pedagogical activity is related to the methods for specific fragments of the lesson (verbal, visual and practical methods), and to the methods used within the whole educational process. That is why in the methodology of teaching foreign languages there have been attempts to clearly define the concepts and to give specific definitions to these groups of methods. I.D. Salistra was probably the first to claim that fragments of a lesson and the whole learning process are two different things that need to be clearly defined. He suggested that the term “teaching method” should be used only to refer to the teacher’s activities in the classroom. As for direction methods, he proposed to use the term “methodological system” (Salistra, 1959), but his idea was not supported by the methodologists. Describing the methods of teaching Russian as a foreign language, A.N. Shchukin suggested that the term “teaching method” should refer to both groups, but, however, it should be specified as a “general didactic method” and a “particular method”. The researcher defined the concept “general didactic teaching method” as a way of interaction between a teacher and students, which is aimed at achieving the goals of education, upbringing and development of students’ abilities. As for the concept “particular method”, it was defined as a direction in language teaching, aimed at achieving the goals and objectives related to the language teaching content. In addition, this direction determines the ways to achieve the goals and objectives (Kapitonova, Shchukin, 1979). Nevertheless, the researchers do not support these ideas. Some specialists in the field of didactics associated the teaching method not with the fragments of the lesson, but with the whole learning process (Shaporinskii, 1958; Lerner, 1981), while the other methodologists argued that it was related not to the whole learning process, but to the fragments of the lesson (Salistra, 1959 ). Thus, it would be wrong to claim that general didactic methods are associated with didactics, whereas particular methods are related to teaching Russian as a foreign language. In general, in the 20th century the specialists, who investigated the problems of didactics and linguodidactics, paid much attention to the concept “teaching method”. Thus, in their monographs, handbooks for teachers and doctoral theses, researchers proposed their own concepts of teaching methods (Aleksyuk, 1973), while the problems related to some fundamental aspects of the theory of teaching methods were not considered. So, the concept of teaching method was not clearly defined (its definition was still ambiguous). Apart from that, there was no convenient classification of methods, and teachers still needed recommendations on how to choose and develop teaching methods. As a result, at the end of the 20th century, the problems related to the theory of teaching methods led to the so called “crisis of teaching methods”. 2. The stage of critical rethinking (21st century). In the 1980s there were the first signs of a crisis in the theory of teaching methods. M.N. Vyatyutnev analyzed the direction methods in teaching Russian as a foreign language and concluded that in the conditions of convergence and interpenetration of the existing direction methods, no new directions could be created (“the methods had already exhausted their potential”). The researcher suggested that the further development of the methodology was no longer related to direction methods, but it was associated with an individualized communicative approach that combined the elements of different methods (Vyatyutnev, 1984). An American methodologist B. Kumaravadivelu shared this opinion and defined the modern methodology of teaching foreign languages as a science that develops in “the postmethod conditions” (Kumaravadivelu, 1994). To some extent, an American researcher D. Brown shared M.N. Vyatyutnev’s point of view. He stated that the future of the methodology was associated with the development of the communicative language teaching (Brown, 2001). In the 1990s Russian and foreign researchers concluded that there was a crisis in the theory of teaching methods both in linguodidactics and didactics. The warning sign of the crisis was the fact that there were no scientific works and methodological manuals devoted to the problems of the teaching method, and scientists hardly used this term in their research. The concept of teaching method was replaced with the terms “teaching approach”, “teaching technique”, “teaching technology”. Researchers concluded that scientific works did not meet specific requirements and there were myths and misconceptions about the teaching methods, which led to the crisis in the theory of teaching methods (Sadovskaya, 2008). Introduction of technologies in pedagogy was another factor that brought about the crisis (Rudakova, 2004). Undoubtedly, one of the causes of the crisis was the fact that researchers failed to clearly define the term “teaching method”. To overcome the crisis, it is crucial to carry out a critical analysis of the modern ideas about the teaching methods. To analyze things, the principles of logic and research methodology should be taken into account. The initial positions should be reviewed, and the theory of teaching methods should be systematized and practically oriented. Thus, the following fundamentally important aspects of the theory of teaching methods should be considered: · it is necessary to develop the structure of the theory of teaching methods and to find the way to implement it; · researchers should make it clear if a method is a conception (a direction in teaching) or a model of the teacher’s activity in the classroom; · it is necessary to determine the principal features of the concept “teaching method” that would help to clearly define this term; · a clear and convenient functional classification of teaching methods should be worked out; · taking into account the functional classification, researchers should propose recommendations on how to choose and develop teaching methods; · constructive elements of teaching methods should be described. Conclusion This article presents the results of the analysis of the ideas about the teaching method in didactics and linguodidactics (from the 17th century until the present). An analysis of different definitions and descriptions of the teaching method made it possible to distinguish three stages in the development of these ideas: the stage of generation of ideas about the teaching method (17th-19th centuries), the stage of formation of scientific ideas about the teaching method (20th century), and the stage of critical rethinking (21st century). The first stage was associated with the spread of the concept of method in philosophical works and the concept of teaching method in didactic and linguodidactic works of the 17th century. R. Descartes and J.A. Comenius contributed to the spread of these ideas. The stage of formation of scientific ideas about the teaching method is associated with the development of pedagogy as a science and with the improvement of its methodology and conceptual system. The third stage is associated with the crisis of teaching methods and the need to overcome it. There is reason to believe that the modern theory of teaching methods will be formed at the third stage. Apart from that, the theory will be based on the descriptions of the principal features of the teaching method that will be used to define this concept. The theory will also be based on the functional classification of teaching methods and recommendations on how to choose and develop a teaching method. It should be noted that such a theory can be built only after the term “teaching method” is clearly defined. Otherwise, researchers will have to create two theories of teaching methods and two different versions of didactics and linguodidactics, which is possible but unreasonable. We believe that if researchers manage to clearly define this term, they will make a great contribution to the methodology of teaching Russian as a foreign language, in which “general didactic” and “particular” methods coexist.

About the authors

Leonid V. Moskovkin

Saint Petersburg State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: l.moskovkin@spbu.ru
7/9 Universitetskaya Embankment, Saint Petersburg, 119034, Russian Federation

Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of Russian as a Foreign Language and Methods of its Teaching

References

  1. Aleksyuk, A.N. (1973). Razvitie teorii obshchikh metodov obucheniya v sovetskoi pedagogike [The development of the theory of general teaching methods in Soviet pedagogy] [Author’s abstr. dr. ped. diss.]. Kiev. (In Russ.)
  2. Anthony, E. (1963). Approach, Method and Technique. English Language Teaching, XVII(2), 63–67.
  3. Avtukhov, I. (1928). Obshchie metody shkol'noi raboty [General methods of school work]. Moscow: Rabotnik prosveshcheniya Publ. (In Russ.)
  4. Babanskii, Yu.K. (1985). Metody obucheniya v sovremennoi obshcheobrazovatel'noi shkole [Teaching methods in a modern comprehensive school]. Moscow: Prosveshhenie Publ. (In Russ.)
  5. Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Publ.
  6. Comenius, J.A. (2005). Novissima linguarum methodus: La toute nouvelle méthode des langues. Geneva, Paris: Librairie Droz. (In French).
  7. Danilov, M.A. (1956). K voprosu o metodakh obucheniya v sovetskoi shkole [On the question of teaching methods in a Soviet school]. Sovetskaya pedagogika [Soviet pedagogy], (10), 87–101. (In Russ.)
  8. Dekart, R. (2015). Rassuzhdenie o metode dlya vernogo napravleniya razuma i otyskaniya istiny v naukakh [Reasoning about the method for the right direction of the mind and finding the truth in the sciences]. Moscow: “Je” Publ. (In Russ.)
  9. Esadzhanyan, B.M. (1980). O soderzhanii termina “metod” [About the content of the term “method”]. Russkii yazyk v natsional'noi shkole [Russian language at the national school], (4), 18–24. (In Russ.)
  10. Evstafiev, P.V. (1879). Nachal'nye osnovaniya pedagogiki, metodiki i didaktiki [The initial foundations of pedagogy, methodology and didactics]. Saint Petersburg: Tip. A. Transhelya Publ. (In Russ.)
  11. Golant, E.Ya. (1957). Metody obucheniya v sovetskoi shkole [Teaching methods in a Soviet school]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz Publ. (In Russ.)
  12. Gugel, E.O. (1834). Metoda Zhakoto, izlozhennaya dlya roditelei i nastavnikov [Jacotot Method Outlined for Parents and Mentors] (part 1). Saint Petersburg: Tip. K. Vingebera Publ. (In Russ.)
  13. Kapitonova, T.I., & Shchukin, A.N. (1979). Sovremennye metody obucheniya russkomu yazyku inostrantsev [Modern methods of teaching Russian to foreigners]. Moscow: Russkii yazyk Publ. (In Russ.)
  14. Kazakevich, V.M. (1998). Informatsionnyi podkhod k metodam obucheniya [Information approach to teaching methods]. Pedagogika [Pedagogy], (6), 43–47. (In Russ.)
  15. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies for second, foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27–48.
  16. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Lemberg, R.G. (1958). Metody obucheniya v shkole [Teaching Methods at the School]. Almaty. (In Russ.)
  18. Lerner, I.Ya. (1981). Didakticheskie osnovy metodov obucheniya [Didactic foundations of teaching methods]. Moscow: Pedagogika Publ. (In Russ.)
  19. Lordkipanidze, D.O. (1957). Printsipy organizatsii i metody obucheniya [Principy organizacii i metody obuchenija]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz Publ. (In Russ.)
  20. Lyakhovitskii, M.V. (1981). Metodika prepodavaniya inostrannykh yazykov [Methods of teaching foreign languages]. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola Publ. (In Russ.)
  21. Rakhmanov, I.V. (1972). Osnovnye napravleniya v metodike prepodavaniya inostrannykh yazykov v 19–20 vv. [The main directions in the methodology of teaching foreign languages in the 19–20 centuries]. Moscow: Pedagogika Publ. (In Russ.)
  22. Richards, J., & Rodgers, Y. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Rubinshtejn, M.M. (1927). Osnovy obshchej metodiki [Basics of the general methodology]. Moscow: MIR Publ.
  24. Rudakova, I.A. (2004). Teoriya i praktika metodov obucheniya v sovremennoi didakticheskoi interpretatsii [Theory and practice of teaching methods in modern didactic interpretation]. Rostov-on-Don: Izd-vo Rostovskogo un-ta Publ. (In Russ.)
  25. Rukovodstvo uchitelyam pervogo i vtorogo klassov narodnykh uchilishch Rossiiskoi im-perii [Guide to teachers of the first and second grades of public schools of the Russian Empire] (1783). Saint Petersburg: Tipografiya Shnora Publ. (In Russ.)
  26. Sadovskaya, I.L. (2008). Metody obucheniya: Mify, zabluzhdeniya i realii [Teaching Methods: Myths, Misconceptions, and Realities]. Krasnoyarsk: KGPU imeni V.P. Astafeva Publ. (In Russ.)
  27. Salistra, I.D. (1959). O nekotorykh metodicheskikh terminakh [About some methodological terms]. Inostrannye yazyki v shkole [Foreign languages at school], (2), 55–64. (In Russ.)
  28. Sarantsev, G.I. (1988). Metod obucheniya kak kategoriya metodiki prepodavaniya [The teaching method as a category of teaching theory]. Pedagogika [Pedagogy], (1), 28–34. (In Russ.)
  29. Shaporinskii, S.A. (1958). K voprosu o metodakh obucheniya [To the question of teaching methods]. Sovetskaya pedagogika [Soviet pedagogy], (2), 116–122. (In Russ.)
  30. Shulman, N.M. (1929). Obshchie metody shkol'noi raboty [General methods of school work]. Pedagogicheskaya entsiklopediya [Pedagogical encyclopedia] (vol. 1). Moscow: Rabotnik prosveshheniya Publ. (In Russ.)
  31. Verzilin, N.M. (1957). Ob opredelenii i klassifikatsii metodov obucheniyan [On the definition and classification of teaching methods]. Sovetskaya pedagogika [Soviet pedagogy], (8), 85–98. (In Russ.)
  32. Vladislavlev, M.I. (1972.). Logika [Logic]. Saint Petersburg: Tip. V. Demakova Publ. (In Russ.) Vsesvyatskii, B.V. Metod iskanii (issledovatel'skii) i novye programmy [Search (Research) Method and New Programs]. Na putyakh k novoi shkole [On the way to a new school], (4–5), 5–19. (In Russ.)
  33. Vyatyutnev, M.N. (1984). Teoriya uchebnika russkogo yazyka kak inostrannogo [Theory of a textbook of Russian as a foreign language]. Moscow: Russkii yazyk Publ. (In Russ.)
  34. Zaichenko, P.A. (1956). Metody obucheniya v sovetskoi politekhnicheskoi shkole [Teaching Methods at the Soviet Polytechnic School]. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta Publ. (In Russ.)

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 80

PDF (Mlt) - 43

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2020 Moskovkin L.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies