CC BY
7PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES
IMPROVING PLANNING FOR FIRST-GRADERS
Zak A.
Leading Researcher, Psychological Institute RAE, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
The article presents the content of the research on improving planning among first-graders based on the development of the program "Intellectics" in extracurricular hours. The main characteristics of the developmental classes under the program "Intellectics" are considered. It is shown that this program significantly contributes to the improvement of planning in children in the first year of schooling.
Keywords: planning action, "Intellectics" program, types of non-standard tasks of non-educational content, planning diagnostics.
1. Introduction
The development of FSES for primary general education entailed a radical change in the educational paradigm. Providing the developmental potential of new educational standards is becoming a priority.
One of the most important tasks of the modern education system is the formation of universal educational actions that provide schoolchildren with the ability to learn, the ability to self-development and improvement.
The concept of development of universal educational actions (UEA) was developed by a group of scientists on the basis of the system-activity approach [2]. The peculiarity of the modern world is that it is changing rapidly. The amount of information is increasing every year. Consequently, the knowledge that the student received at school becomes obsolete after a certain time and needs to be adjusted. Without the formation of universal educational actions in junior schoolchildren, successful education in primary school is impossible.
Considering in more detail "action planning" (as a specific type of regulatory UEA), it should be noted that it includes determining the sequence of intermediate goals, taking into account the final result and drawing up a plan and sequence of actions.
The formation of the ability to plan in a younger student is associated with the beginning of schooling. In accordance with the Federal State Educational Standard of primary general education [12], the ability to plan their actions in younger schoolchildren is a necessary skill to achieve high results in educational activities, to predict difficulties in a timely manner and ways to overcome them.
In elementary school, on the basis of modern pedagogical approaches, the ability of schoolchildren to plan their work is considered as performing an action associated with determining a sequence of intermediate goals, highlighting actions to achieve each of them and building their sequence to achieve the final result [1]. Within the framework of this approach, a number of works were carried out devoted to the study of the possibilities of forming planning in schoolchildren in the process of teaching in Russian lessons [3], [4] and in mathematics classes [5], [9].
Domestic psychologists study planning as a component of theoretical thinking associated with analysis and reflection in solving problems [10], [11].
Foreign researchers study planning in different aspects: they consider the content of children's reasoning about the possible results of changes in the proposed situations [14], analyze the peculiarities of planning by children when solving problems [13], determine the connection of planning with other cognitive processes
- thinking, memory, imagination [15].
Analysis of the content of the noted works shows that the formation of planning in younger schoolchildren has not been sufficiently studied. This especially concerns the study of the possibilities of forming planning in primary schoolchildren on non-educational material.
The purpose of our study was to establish the conditions for the formation of the ability to plan in primary school students, in particular, in first-graders, based on non- educational material.
A total of 96 first grade students took part in the study: 49 students made up the experimental group, 47
- the control group. The children of the experimental group were given 32 lessons during the academic year under the program "Intellectics" [6, 7]. The material of the program for the first grade is designed for 32 lessons (once a week: 30-3 5 minutes in the first half of the year, 40-45 minutes in the second half of the year).
Our assumption was that the development of the "Intellectics" program by children along with the assimilation of the content of the programs of the first grade subjects (experimental group) will contribute to the formation of their planning ability to a much greater extent than just the assimilation of the content of the curriculum (control group). This assumption is based on a significant variety of problematic material on which the content of the "Intellectics" program is built [6].
2. Materials and methods
2.1. General characteristics ofthe tasks of the program "Intellectics"
The problematic material that makes up the content of the "Intelletics" program includes four kinds of non-standard, non-educational search problems.
Plot-logic tasks belong to the first kind - in these tasks it is required to draw a conclusion from the proposed judgments. For example, such a problem: "Alla and Misha solved arithmetic examples: someone - for addition, someone - for subtraction. Alla solved addition examples. What examples did Misha solve? " Answer: Misha solved examples for subtraction.
The second kind includes spatial combinatorial problems - in these problems it is required to find the desired arrangement of objects by combining their arrangement proposed in the problem statement.
For example, such a task: "From the combination of letters W K M you need to get the combination K M
W in two steps." In problems of this type, one action is the interchange of places of any two letters. " Solution: in the first action, the letters K and W are swapped, in the second action - W and M.
Comparative tasks belong to the third kind - in these tasks it is required to compare schematic representations of known objects.
For example, such a problem: "Among the three buttons - A, B and C, - you need to find one that has one common feature with each of the other two buttons", - Fig. 1:
A
B
c
Fig. 1. Comparative problem.
Answer: "Button B has the same size as button B and the same number of holes as button A."
Route tasks belong to the fourth kind - in these tasks it is required to find a path from one known point to another. For example, such a task, - Fig. 2:
A
o
A B B r Fig. 2. Route problem.
"In this problem you need to find a three-step path from a circle to a triangle. In this case, steps on the diagonal should alternate with steps on the horizontal."
Solution: the first step is from cell A1 to cell B2, the second lag is from cell B2 to cell B2, the third step is from cell B2 to cell G3.
It is important to note here that each of these types includes several rather different types of tasks, and tasks of each type are offered in different versions.
It should be emphasized that, as individual experiments have shown, the achievement of the required result in the tasks of these four genera presupposes the child's planning of his actions in the search for a solution.
2.2. Features of plot logic tasks
Let's consider a variety of types of problematic material using the example of plot-logical tasks. The program "Intellectics" for the first class contains six types of plot-logical tasks: "What fits", "Who has what", "Earlier, later", "Closer, more to the left", "More than", "Similarity, difference". It should be noted that all the plot-logical tasks of these types were solved by children only in the second half of the school year (February - May), when reading skills were mastered.
At the same time, it is important that tasks of each type are offered in different design versions.
2.2.1. Versions of the problems "Who has what" Reasoning in the problems "Who has what" is based on the correlation of the general judgment, usually expressed in the initial sentence of the problem, with one of the particular judgments. This is necessary to derive the content of another private judgment.
Tasks of this type are implemented in four versions of condition representation, one of which is the main one, and the other three are derivatives.
The main version is associated with the search for the connection of one actor of the task with one of the objects in the presence of information about the connection of another actor with another object. Consider the following problem: "Vova and Vitya were learning foreign words. Someone learned English words, someone German. Vova studied English words. Who taught German words? " (Conclusion: Vitya).
The second version is related to the use of negative judgment. In this case, it is necessary to discover the connection of one actor with one object contained in the condition of the problem, taking into account the information about the absence of the connection of another actor with another object. Consider the following problem: "Lena and Katya knitted items of clothing. Some of them knitted a hat, some a scarf. Lena did not knit a scarf. Who knitted the hat? " (Conclusion: Lena).
The third version is connected with the fact that the sought-for in the problem is a question, and it is necessary, relying on the information given in the condition, to choose a question that can be asked. Consider the following problem: "Seva and Kolya participated in sports games. Some of them were volleyball players, some were hockey players. Seva played volleyball. -What question should you choose to get an answer based on the information given in the problem: 1) How old is Seva? 2) How many years did Kolya train? 3) Who played hockey? " (Conclusion: you need to choose question 3).
The fourth version is connected with the fact that the required part of the problem is part of the condition and you need to choose what information is missing, what to get the answer to the question of the problem. Consider the following problem: "Vera and Marina were swimming. Someone swam breaststroke, someone - crawl. What style did Marina swim in? " - What you need to know to get an answer to this question: 1) Vera has been swimming for 4 years; 2) Marina studied well at school; 3) Vera was swimming in crawl. " (Conclusion: you need to know that Vera was swimming in crawl).
2.2.2. Versions of the "Earlier, later" tasks
The reasoning in the problems "Before, later" is based on the correlation of judgments about the speed of actions presented in the conditions of the actors with judgments about the time of the beginning or end of their activities or with judgments about the amount of product obtained as a result of these actions.
Tasks of this type are implemented in four versions of the condition view, one of which is the main one, and the other three are derivatives.
The main version is related to the search for the end time (option a) or the beginning (option b) of the activities of the actors mentioned in the condition. Let's consider the following variants of the problem: (a) "Alla and Vera drew animals. They started at the same time and acted equally quickly. Alla drew more animals than Vera. Which of the girls finished acting later? " (Conclusion: Alla); (b) "Vika and Galya were sewing on buttons. They acted equally quickly and finished at the same time. Vika sewed on more buttons than Galya. Which of the girls started acting earlier? " (Conclusion: Vika).
The second version is related to the search for the ratio of the number of products of the activities of the actors mentioned in the problem (option a) or the ratio of the speed of their actions (option b). Consider the following problem: (a) "Dasha and Katya were ironing handkerchiefs. They started and finished ironing at the same time. Katya stroked faster than Dasha. Which of them ironed more handkerchiefs? " (Conclusion: Katya); (b) "Rita and Zhanna washed berries. They started and finished washing at the same time. Rita washed more berries than Jeanne. Who acted faster? " (Conclusion: Rita).
The third version is connected with the fact that in the problem the required question is and it is necessary, based on the information provided in the condition, to choose a question that can be asked. Consider the fol-
lowing problem: "Inna and Kolya were picking mushrooms. They started at the same time and acted at the same speed. Inna collected more mushrooms than Kolya. " Which question should be chosen to get an answer based on the information given in the problem: (1) What mushrooms did Inna collect? (2) How many mushrooms did Kolya collect? (3) Who finished picking mushrooms later? " (Answer: you need to choose question 3).
The fourth version is connected with the fact that the required part of the problem is part of the condition and you need to choose what information is missing, what to get the answer to the question of the problem. Consider the following problem: "Masha and Nadya read stories. The girls began to act at the same time and read equally quickly. Who finished reading the stories later? " What you need to know to get an answer to this question: 1) Masha read stories about nature; 2) Nadia read great stories; 3) Masha read more stories than Nadya. " (Conclusion: you need to know that you have read more stories than Nadia).
2.2.3. Versions of the tasks "What is right"
The reasoning in the tasks "What is appropriate" is based on the generalization and concretization of the objects presented in the conditions. When solving these problems, information about different types of plants and animals, as well as about various types of things that are at home (furniture, dishes, clothes, shoes) and on the street (cars, houses, trees, etc.) are taken into account.
Tasks of this type are implemented in four versions of condition representation, one of which is the main one, and the other three are derivatives.
The main version is related to the search for an object of the same kind as other objects contained in the problem statement. Consider this problem: "There is a pen and pencil on one table, and an eraser and a phone on the other. What on the second table matches what is on the first table? " (Conclusion: eraser).
The second version is related to the use of negative judgment. In this case, you need to find an object that does not belong to the same genus as the other objects presented in the condition. Consider the following problem: "In one drawer of the table there are a hammer and pliers, in the other - a screwdriver and a felt-tip pen. What's in the second drawer doesn't match what is in the first drawer? " (Conclusion: felt-tip pen).
The third version is connected with the fact that in the problem the desired question is the question and it is necessary, relying on the information given in the condition, to choose a question that can be asked. Consider this problem: "In one room there were chairs and a sofa, in another room there were a table and a refrigerator." Which question you need to choose in order to get an answer based on the information given in the task: 1) What color was the sofa? 2) How many chairs were there in the first room? 3) What in the second room matches what is in the first room? " (Conclusion: you need to choose question 3).
The fourth version is connected with the fact that the required part of the problem is part of the condition and you need to choose what information is lacking in order to get the answer to the question of the problem.
Consider this problem: "In one folder there were two books, in the other a book about birds and a book about airplanes. What in the second folder matches what is in the first folder? ""What you need to know to answer the question of the problem: 1) The books in the first folder were with color drawings; 2) The book about birds was large; 3) In the first bag there was a book about fish and a book about insects. (Conclusion: you need to know that the first bag had a book about fish and a book about insects).
2.2.3. Versions of problems "Closer, more to the
left"
Reasoning in the problems "Closer, more to the left" is based on the correlation of judgments, which reflect the relations of objects in space.
Tasks of this type are implemented in five versions of the presentation of conditions, of which the first three are basic (in terms of the type of spatial relations), and the other two (associated with a change in the structure of the problem) are derivatives.
In the first version (the simplest one), the relationship "above - below" is considered. Consider the following problem: "Two words were written with black and yellow markers: PIKE CATFISH
The black word is higher than the yellow one. What felt-tip pen did you write the word CATFISH ? " (Output: yellow).
The second version (slightly more complex than the first version) considers the left-to-right relationship. Consider the following problem:
"They wrote two words in blue and red crayons: GOAT DOG
The blue word is to the left of the red. What word did you write in red crayon? " (Conclusion: the word DOG).
The third version (the most difficult of the three) deals with the closer-farther relationship. Consider the following problem:
"They wrote three words with blue, yellow and pink paints:
PLUM BEAK LETTER
The blue word is farther from the LETTER than the yellow word. What word did you write in blue paint? " (Conclusion: the word PLUM).
The fourth version is connected with the fact that in the problem the desired question is the question and it is necessary, relying on the information given in the condition, to choose a question that can be asked. Consider the following problem: "We wrote two words with paint and a felt-tip pen: ERASER PEN
The word written with a felt-tip pen, to the left of the word written with paint "
Which question you need to choose in order to get an answer based on the information given in the task: 1) What color was the felt-tip pen? 2) What color was the paint? 3) What word is written with a felt-tip pen? " (Conclusion: you need to choose question 3). The fifth version is connected with the fact that the required part of the problem is part of the condition and you need to
choose what information is lacking in order to get the answer to the question of the problem. Consider the following problem:
"We wrote two words in blue and black pencils: CHAIR HAT
What pencil is written the word HAT ? "
What you need to know to get an answer to this question: 1) The hat was fur; 2) The chair was plastic; 3) The blue word is to the left of the black one. (Conclusion: you need to know that the word "blue word is to the left of black").
2.2.4. Versions of "More than"problems
The reasoning in the tasks "More than" is based on the correlation of judgments about the degree of manifestation of the qualities of the characters presented in the content of the tasks.
Tasks of this type are implemented in five versions of the presentation of conditions, three of which are basic, and two (associated with a change in the structure of the problem) are derivatives.
The first version (the simplest) is associated with the use of affirmative judgments, both in the condition and in the question of the problem. Consider the following problem: "Masha and Katya were racing. Ma-sha ran slower than Katya. Which of the girls ran faster? " (Conclusion: Katya).
The second version (a little more complicated than the first) is related to the fact that a negative judgment is applied in the condition, and an affirmative judgment is applied in the problem question. Consider the following problem: "Vika and Nina drew dresses. Vika did not draw as well as Nina. Which of the girls drew dresses better? " (Conclusion: Nina).
The third version (the most difficult of the three) is related to the fact that an affirmative judgment is applied in the condition, and a negative judgment is applied in the problem question. Consider the following problem: "Lena and Nadia were wiping glassware. Nadia wiped better than Lena. Which of the girls did not wipe glassware as well as Nadia? " (Conclusion: Lena).
The fourth version is connected with the fact that in the problem the desired question is the question and it is necessary, relying on the information given in the condition, to choose a question that can be asked. Consider the following problem: "Vitya and Gena were jumping up and down. Gena jumped higher than Viti. "
Which question should be chosen to get an answer based on the information given in the problem: (1) How many times did Gena jump? (2) How high did Vitya jump? (3) Who jumped below Gena? " (Conclusion: you need to choose question 3).
The fifth version is connected with the fact that the required part of the problem is part of the condition and you need to choose what information is missing, what to get the answer to the question of the problem. Consider the following problem: "Sveta and Ira were making cakes in the sandbox. Which of the girls made more cakes?"
What you need to know to get an answer to this question: 1) The girls were five years old. 2) Ira had a red scoop. 3) Sveta made less cakes than Ira. (Conclusion: you need to know that Sveta made less cakes than Ira).
2.2.5. Versions of the problems "Similarity, difference "
The reasoning in the tasks "Similarity, difference" is based on the correlation of judgments about the similarities and differences in the qualities of the characters presented in the content of the tasks.
Tasks of this type are implemented in five versions of the presentation of conditions, three of which are basic, and two (associated with a change in the structure of the problem) are other derivatives.
The first version (the simplest) is associated with the use of affirmative judgments, both in the condition and in the question of the problem. Consider the following problem: "Kolya, Lara and Lena sent messages: two people to Kostroma, one to Minsk. Lena exchanged messages with her cousin from Minsk. Where did Kolya send messages? " (Conclusion: to Kostroma).
The second version (a little more complicated than the first) is related to the fact that a negative judgment is applied in the condition, and an affirmative judgment is applied in the problem question. Consider the following problem: "Masha, Sonya and Katya cut out circles from paper: two girls cut out small circles, one cut out large circles. Sonya did not carve small circles. What circles, small or large, did Katya cut out? " (Conclusion: Katya cut out small circles).
The third version (the most difficult of the three) is related to the fact that an affirmative judgment is applied in the condition, and a negative judgment is applied in the problem question. Consider the following problem: "Vika, Nastya and Nadya pasted drawings to a poster: two girls pasted drawings of fish, one girl pasted drawings of birds. Vika pasted drawings of birds. Which of the girls has not pasted the pictures of fish? " (Conclusion: Vika).
The fourth version is connected with the fact that in the problem the desired question is the question and it is necessary, relying on the information given in the condition, to choose a question that can be asked. Consider the following problem: "Ira, Dasha and Tanya read books in the summer. Two girls read six books over the summer, and one girl read eight books over the summer. Ira and Dasha read the same number of books.
"What question should you choose to get an answer based on the information given in the problem: 1) How many pages were in the books that the girls read? 2) In which summer month did the girls read the most books? 3) Which of the girls has read 8 books? " (Conclusion: you need to choose question 3).
The fifth version is connected with the fact that the required part of the problem is part of the condition and you need to choose what information is lacking in order to get the answer to the question of the problem. Consider the following problem: "Misha, Petya and Kolya were guessing riddles. Two boys have solved four riddles, and one has answered five riddles. How many riddles did Misha guess? "
What you need to know to get an answer to this question: 1) The riddles were difficult. 2) Riddles were about animals. 3) Kolya guessed more riddles than Petya. (Conclusion: you need to know that Kolya guessed riddles, more than Petya."
2.3. Features of developmental activities
The organization of the solution of problems that have various versions of the presentation (affirmative and negative judgments, the question as the desired one or part of the condition as the desired one), create favorable conditions for the development of mental search actions by children. This provides an opportunity to better understand the methods of constructing inferences related to the search for a conclusion based on the comparison of the proposed judgments.
It is important to note the peculiarities of constructing classes under the "Intellectics" program. So, any lesson has three parts. In the initial part of the lesson, the children, together with the teacher, analyze the conditions of one of the tasks of the type that is determined by the program for this lesson. Such analysis is needed to form the children's ability to analyze problematic material, so that they have the opportunity to determine the known and unknown in the proposed problems themselves and independently organize the search for a solution, controlling their actions.
After the noted analysis, children are invited to solve problems of the same type without the help of a teacher: 6 - 8 problems (in the first half of the year) and 8 - 10 problems in the second half of the year. This allows the children to practice the analytical and exploratory skills they learned in the early part of the lesson. Upon completion of independent work (10 - 15 minutes are allotted for it in the first half of the year and 15 - 20 minutes in the second half of the year), the teacher, together with the children, checks the solved problems.
The main attention is paid to erroneous decisions: children are explained which omissions when considering a problem condition lead to an incorrect answer, and it is also indicated what data is important to take into account in order to correctly solve the problem and what is not important. When assessing the right decisions, children are reminded of the stages of solving problems, as well as the correct actions for analyzing their conditions, finding a solution and verifying it.
A similar analysis of problem solving is carried out in each lesson with each type of problem. This creates good conditions for children to constantly increase the level of formation of productive analytical and search actions, in particular, the ability to plan.
2.4 Planning diagnostics
Before 32 developmental lessons (in September) and after their completion (in May), the pupils of the experimental and control groups participated in group diagnostics in order to determine the level characteristics of the formation of planning skills and their changes.
The children were offered to solve the problems of the author's methodology "Messenger", which included eight main problems.
When developing this technique, we proceeded from the concept of two levels of formation of planning for solving problems [8].
At the first level, the child outlines and performs each action within a certain sequence separately, plans his decision only for individual actions that he does not combine in one sequence (in this case, the decision is carried out by trial and error, alternating moments of
planning with the implementation of individual links of the solution) ... This is formal, partial planning.
At the second level, the entire sequence of actions is outlined by the child in full, before the implementation of the first action. Here the solution is planned as a whole, by comparing the various possibilities for implementing the entire sequence of necessary actions, while choosing the appropriate options for the method of obtaining the desired result. In this case, subsequent actions are planned simultaneously with the previous ones, and the previous ones are planned taking into account possible options for the implementation of subsequent ones. This planning will be meaningful and holistic.
In accordance with these concepts, a general scheme of a two-part experimental situation was developed, designed to determine the characteristics of plan-
ning as partial or integral. In the first part of this situation, the subject is asked to master some simple action, and in the second part it is necessary to solve several problems to build increasing sequences of such actions.
The selection of tasks in the second part of this situation must meet the following requirements. First, the sequence of executive actions should gradually increase from the first task to the last. Secondly, there should be at least two tasks with the same number of executive actions. Thirdly, tasks should not have a common principle of solution. This requirement aims to ensure that you have to experiment mentally every time, redesigning and testing an ever-increasing sequence of actions.
The group diagnostic session was carried out as follows. At the beginning of the lesson, the teacher draws the following playing field on the board:
Fig. 3. The playing field.
Children are told: "Circles are tents in the forest, the lines between them - paths, circles, squares, triangles, sticks, dots and snakes in circles - these are " tourists ". In the upper circles there is a triangle and a stick, a triangle and a snake, a square and a point, in the two middle circles there is a circle and a point, a circle and a stick, in the lower circles there is a square and a stick, a circle and a snake, a square and a snake.
A messenger with various errands walks along the paths between the tents. But he can only walk along such paths that connect the tents, where there is the same "tourist". If the path connects the tents, where there is no identical "tourist", then a messenger cannot walk along such a path.
For example, where can the messenger go from the tent, where is the triangle and the stick? ... (Answer: to
the tent with the triangle and the snake and to the tent with the square and the stick - this answer shows one part of the messenger rule).
Where can he not go from this tent? ... (Answer: into the tent with a circle and a dot). Here the other part of the messenger rule is explained to the children.
If it turns out that many students have not learned the messenger rule, then the same two questions can be addressed, for example, to a tent with a square and a stick. First, the question is asked: "Where can the messenger go from the tent with the square and the stick?" The next question is asked: "Where can't the messenger go from the tent with a square and a stick?"
After mastering both parts of the rule for moving the messenger, the teacher places on the blackboard the condition of the first problem of two paths:
Figure 4. Condition of the first task.
The children are told that they need to find out how from the tent, where the triangle and the stick are, the messenger can get, following two paths, into the tent, where the circle and the snake are. After discussing possible solutions and clarifying that the messenger
cannot go into the tent with a square and a stick, since it is a trap (i.e., a tent that can be entered, but, according to the rule, cannot be exited), the decision of this tasks - a triangle and a snake are placed in a free cell:
Figure 5. Solution of the first task. Children are invited to solve the second problem with two paths:
Figure 6. Condition of the second task. After discussing possible options, her decision is recorded:
Figure 7. Solution of the second problem.
Next, the teacher gives the children forms with the conditions for eight problems and explains: "You have several problems on the sheets. At the very top, there are two tasks, where the messenger walked along two paths from the initial tent to the final one and entered one intermediate tent. Therefore, in these problems there is one free circle, where it is necessary to draw the answer - tourists from the intermediate tent.
Below these two tasks (after the line) there are two tasks, where the messenger from the initial tent to the
final one also went along two paths. And in these tasks you need to write the answer in one free circle. Further, after the line, there are two problems, where the messenger went through three paths. Therefore, the answer must be drawn in two free circles. At the very bottom of the sheet there are two more problems, where the messenger walked four paths.
Solve problems one through eight in a row. Act carefully and independently.
FORM
Fig. 8. Form with tasks for group work.
3. Results
On the basis of a series of individual experiments with the "Messenger" methodology, the following criteria were developed to assess the level of formation of the planning mental action.
If the child coped with only the basic tasks in two actions: No. 1, or No. 1 - 2, or No. 1 - 3, or No. 1 - 4 and did not cope with the rest, more difficult tasks in three actions, - No. 5 and 6, and, even more so, with tasks in four actions No. 7 and 8, this indicates that when solving the tasks of this task, he carried out only
formal, partial planning, outlining each subsequent action after completing the previous one.
If the child successfully solved not only tasks in two actions, but also tasks in three actions (and sometimes even tasks in four actions), then this indicates that in solving problems he carried out meaningful, holistic planning associated with the preliminary programming of the entire sequence of required actions.
Comparison of the data obtained as a result of the diagnostics in September and May are presented in the table.
Table
The results of solving the problems of the "Messenger" methodology by children in the control and experimental
Контрольная Экспериментальная
Виды группа группа
Планирования Заданиие 1 Задание 2
Сентябрь Май Сентябрь Май
Частичное 91,5 80,9 93,9 59,2
Целостное 8,5 19,1* 6,1 40,8*
Примечание: * - p < 0.05.
The data presented in the table characterize the number of children who solved all eight problems during the initial diagnostics in September (before developing classes) and the final diagnostics in May (after developing classes). These data allow us to note the following.
First, the number of those children in the control and experimental groups who solved problems using holistic planning in September is approximately the same, respectively: 8.5% and 6.1%.
Secondly, the number of those children in the control and experimental groups who in May solved problems using holistic planning differs markedly, respectively: 19.1% and 40.8% - the difference in the noted indicators is statistically significant (at p <0.05) . In the control group, the number of such children increased only by 10.6%, that is, almost doubled. In the experimental group, the number of children who solved problems using holistic planning increased by 34.7%, i.e. almost seven times.
Thus, the data characterizing the level of formation of the ability to plan in first-graders before and after developmental activities indicate that the participation of children in regular developmental activities contributes to the formation of a higher, holistic level of planning skills in them.
The obtained result of testing the Intellectic program in order to form holistic planning in children allows us to assert that this program, which includes search tasks of four genera, plot—logical, spatial-combinatorial, comparative, route, - really contributes to the formation of higher planning in first-graders. holistic level.
4. Conclusion
So, the results of the study confirmed the initial hypothesis that the development of the "Intellectics" program by children along with the development of the content of the programs of the first grade subjects will contribute to the formation of their planning ability to a much greater extent than just the development of the content of the curriculum.
This result is related to the characteristics of the problems included in the "Intellectics" program. Firstly, children are offered problems of non-educational content and search nature. Secondly, in the classroom, various kinds of problems are offered: plot-logical, spatial-combinatorial, comparative, route. Moreover, each kind of problem includes several types, and each type is offered in several versions. Thirdly, students solve problems of different structures: with a complete condition and a question (find an answer), with an incomplete condition and a question (find a part of a condition), with a complete condition and without a question (find a question).
The important conditions for the implementation of the program are the features of developmental classes: their total number, frequency and regularity, duration and structure of each lesson. In total, 32 classes were held for nine months (September - May), one lesson per week. Each lesson included three parts: a preliminary discussion of the proposed type of problems, independent problem solving, and a final discussion of the results of children's actions.
The conducted research has shown for the first time that the solution of non-educational search problems by junior first-graders significantly contributes to the formation of universal educational actions associated with the child's independent planning of actions to solve problems. This fact allows us to consider the "Intellectics" program as an important component of the program for the formation of universal educational actions, which, in accordance with the requirements of the FSES, should be part of the main educational program of primary education.
The study also made it possible to gain new knowledge about the conditions for the formation of UEA in primary school, in particular, among children studying in the first grade of primary school. This knowledge expands the understanding of developmental psychology about the possibilities of intellectual development of children at primary school age and clarifies the provisions of educational psychology about the conditions of mental development in primary school.
At the same time, the results obtained allow us to consider the "Intellectics" program as an important factor in the intellectual enrichment of the educational environment in primary school.
The results of this study give grounds to set the task of performing a number of studies to develop a more effective (than in this study) composition of search tasks by including their new genera and species in the "Intellectics" program.
In general, the study showed the effectiveness of using the "Intellectics" program for the formation of regulatory actions in younger schoolchildren (in particular, in first-graders) related to the independent planning of problem solving by children.
References
1. Argunova, E.R. Active teaching methods: study method allowance / E.R. Argunova, R.F. Zhukov, I. G. Marichev. - Moscow: Research Center for the Problems of the Quality of Training of Specialists, 2009. - 104 p.
2. Asmolov, A.G. How to design universal learning actions in primary school: from action to thought: pos. for the teacher / A.G. Asmolov, G.V. Burmen-skaya, I.A. Volodarskaya [and others]; ed. A.G. As-molova. Mockow: Prosvechenie, 2008. - 151 p.
3 Broslavskaya, T.L. Formation and development of regulatory UEA for students at the lessons of the Russian language // Young scientist, 2015, no. 13. pp. 605-608
4. Dolgosheeva, E.V. Formation of the ability of primary schoolchildren to carry out long-term planning // Epistemological foundations of education: international collection of scientific papers. Yelets, 2015. pp. 195-198.
5. Dubovskaya, N.A. Planning of educational actions of a younger schoolchild in the process of educational activities // Young scientists, 2015, no. 6. pp. 327-329.
6. Zak A.Z. Intellectics. Book for the teacher. Moscow: Intellect Center, 2008. - 96 p.
7. Zak A.Z. Intellectics. Notebook for the development of thinking abilities. Moscow: Intellect Center, 2016. - 423 p.
8. Zak A.Z. Diagnostics of differences in the thinking of primary schoolchildren. Moskow: Genesis, 2007. - 159 p.
9. Ionova, M.S. On the problem of psychological and pedagogical support of the formation of mental actions of planning and forecasting in younger schoolchildren // Russian scientific journal, 2011, no. 23. pp. 204 - 209.
10. Isaev, E.I. Psychological characteristics of planning methods in younger schoolchildren // Questions of psychology, 2014, no. 2. pp. 52 - 60.
11. Fedekin IN A new method for diagnosing the formation of a planning action // Bulletin of the International Association "Developing Education", 2000, no 7. pp.127 - 139.
12. Federal state educational standard of primary general education. 2nd ed. Moscow: Prosvechenie, 2011 .-- 41 p.
13.Cox, R. F. A., & Smitsman, A. W. (2006). Action planning in young schoolchildren's tool use. Developmental Science, 9, 628 - 641
14. McColgan, K., & McCormack, T. (2008). Searching and planning: Young children's reasoning about past and future eventsequences. Child Development, 79, 1477-1497.
15. Morris R, Ward G. The Cognitive Psychology of Planning. Edited Psychology Press. 2014. - 256 p.
ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ПРОЕКТОВ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВА (COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS)
МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЙ ПРОГРАММЫ GLOBAL UNDERSTANDING/ ГЛОБАЛЬНОЕ ПОНИМАНИЕ В РАЗВИТИИ МЕТАПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНЫХ КАЧЕСТВ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ ОБУЧЕНИЯ СПЕЦИАЛЬНОСТИ "ПЕРЕВОДЧИК ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОЙ
КОММУНИКАЦИИ")
Покровская Л.Н.
старший преподаватель ГУМРФ им. адм. С. О. Макарова
USING THE COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS OF THE GLOBAL UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM IN DEVELOPING METAPROFESSIONAL QUALITIES (WITH THE REFERENCE TO THE COURSE "TRANSLATOR/INTERPRETER OF PROFESSIONAL
COMMUNICATION")
Pokrovskaya L.
Senior lecturer SUMIS named after admiral S. O. Makarov
Аннотация
В статье раскрывается использование видеоконференций, чатов и проектной деятельности как активных методов обучения в формировании метапрофессиональных качеств студентов специальности «переводчик деловой коммуникации».
Abstract
The article deals with the use of videoconferencing, chats and project activities as active learning methods in the formation of metaprofessional qualities of students on the course "Professional translation for expert communities".
Ключевые слова: метапрофессиональные качества, компетентностный подход, ключевая компетентность, виртуальная среда обучения, активные методы обучения.
Keywords: metaprofessional qualities, competence approach, core competence, virtual learning environment, active learning methods.
Сущность метапрофессиональных качеств На сегодняшний день представления о необходимых метапрофессиональных качествах для разных профессиональных направлений находятся на стадии формирования. Такой дефицит представлений о ведущих конструктах профессионального образования актуализировал нашу тему исследования, некоторые результаты которого рассмотрены в данной статье.
Метапрофессиональные качества, по мнению Э. Зеер и Э. Сыманюк, - это способности, свойства
личности, обуславливающие, определяющие продуктивность широкого круга социальной и профессиональной деятельности специалиста [1].
В нашем исследовании основное внимание обращено на контекстно-компетентностный подход -один из новых концептуальных направлений развития содержания образования в развитых странах мира, т.к. он ориентирует образование не только на освоение знаний, но и на формирование проектной культуры, которая подразумевает использование продуктивных технологий, нестандартных форм и методов подготовки специалистов, максимально
