CC BY
30
Section 5. Pedagogy
Список литературы:
1. Критская Е. Д. Методы интонационно-стилевого постижения музыки. - М.: Наука, - 1998.
2. Михайлов М. К. Стиль в музыке. - Л.: - 1981.
3. Назайкинский Е. В. Стиль и жанр в музыке. - М.: Владос, - 2003.
4. Николаева А. Стилевой подход в музыкальной педагогике. - М.: Владос, - 2001.
5. Скребков С. С. Художественные принципы музыкальных стилей. - М.: - 1973.
Linkov Alexander Yordanov, University of Plovdiv "Paisii Hilendarski”, Bulgaria, Senior Assistant Professor PhD, The Faculty of Pedagogy
E-mail: starcom2@abv.bg
The Dalton technology in the field of new educational realities
abstract: What unites most of the contemporary pedagogical technologies are several new basic principles and a need for a more in-depth analysis of the psychophysical and individual characteristics of the people trained. Realisation of the gradual substitution of the less effective verbal (word) method of knowledge transfer for a system-active approach, possibilities to design the learning process and the organisational forms of interaction between teachers and students in an active learning environment, polyvalent in character.
Keywords: educational system, educational medium, school values, pedagogical technologies.
What makes an impression about the conditions in which the modern educational system exists — as a world trend and especially as a national doctrine — above all, is the common requirement for development of the informational field of students in the course of their personal growth and completion.
The contemporary stage of development of our society is characterised by dynamic changes, many of which have no analogue in human history. More and more deepening processes of societal globalisation and internationalisation are being observed. As well as this, both the nature of labour itself and the technical base and organisational structures of economy are changing; new types and varieties of activity are emerging, while many of the ones that have existed so far are gradually becoming out of date. The changes in the economic base exert influence on the social sphere as well: the structure of society and the relationships between different social groups are undergoing change.
The progressive development of democratic processes in civil society leads to a considerable change in the orientation of values, behaviour, way of life and the relationships between people. Education becomes a key factor and condition in societal development, performing social, economic, cultural and many other functions. Education provides some continuity in society, passing on knowledge and experience which humanity has gained over time. It recreates and develops
human potential, which allows society to renew itself constantly.
According to Ivan Velchev, tangible changes are taking place in Europe, connected above all with “the processes of economic and cultural globalisation”. As one of the significant indicators characterising the educational medium, PISA points out student engagement. This indicator contains two components — a sense of belonging to school life and participation in the educational process. The former carries information about the identification of a 15 year-old with his/her school results (whether he/she thinks that education contributes to his/her individual development and material prosperity in the future), as well as how he/she accepts school values, and how he/she is accepted and estimated in the school environment. The second component of the indicator registers presence in classes, preparedness for the lessons, completion of assignments, attention in class, as well as participation in extra-curricular activities such as sport or interest clubs [1].
G. K. Selevko gives a versatile definition of the term “pedagogical technology”, formulating — along with the purely lexical interpretations — some possible etymological relations built on the basis of its complex application in school practice.
1. Technology can be viewed as a mixture of methods, applied in a purposeful and planned way, to a concrete piece of work, when demonstrating mastery in art.
112
Секция 5. Педагогика
2. Pedagogical technology is a mixture of psychological and pedagogical rules defining a special set and combination of forms, methods, techniques and nostrums of teaching, as well as means of education; it also includes organisational and methodological instruments of the pedagogical process (according to B. T Lihachev).
3. Pedagogical technology is a “description” of the process of achieving planned educational results (according to P. I. Volkov).
4. Pedagogical technology is a meaningful “technology” for the realisation of the educational process (according to V. P. Bespalko).
5. Teaching technology is an integral “procedural aspect” of didactic systems (according to V. M. She-pel) [12, 14-15].
A report with the working title “Key Data on Education in Europe”, published in 2012 by the Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice) placed great emphasis on the “assessment of schools and teachers. In the majority of countries, there has been introduced a system of external assessment of schools, usually carried out by an inspectorate, as well as a system of internal assessment conducted by the school staff or sometimes by other members of the school community. The individual assessment made by teachers has only recently been introduced and established in several countries, such as Belgium (Flemish Community), Portugal, Slovenia and Liechtenstein, sometimes within the framework of a common result assessment system for all state institutions.” In most of the countries, the grades that students receive in external assessment tests are used along with the results from school assessment procedures, from the monitoring and control of their own educational systems [4].
The pedagogical technologies based on classic formulations, which were an inseparable functional part of their functional models, are also subject to corrections, amendments and additions.
What unites most of the contemporary pedagogical technologies are several new basic principles (they are difficult to classify as defining, fundamental or determining, but rather have the meaning and status of a standard for the various methodological variants of realisation):
- a need for a more in-depth analysis of the psychophysical and individual characteristics of the people trained;
- realisation of the gradual substitution of the less effective verbal (word) method of knowledge transfer for a system-active approach;
possibilities to design the learning process and the organisational forms of interaction between teachers and students in an active learning environment, polyvalent in character [13].
I. I. Poltava and G. I. Kozlova, in line with the new views on the place and role of pedagogical technologies, maintain that one group of them is of considerable importance to the fulfilment of effective school work throughout the various school grades. In this group, they undoubtedly include the following manifestations of pedagogical technology (providing that these technologies are applicable under all educational circumstances and specific school subjects): technology of module training; technology of students’ development of critical thinking; technology of analysis of concrete situations; research technology of training students from upper ages and grades; technology of the organisation of group interaction; technology of project training; technology of play training; technology of problem-based training; technology of individual work organisation [8, 35].
The active educational space at school, which very often changes its reference limits; the changed role and status of teachers, who are most of the time discreet supervisors of the self-teaching process; the increased informational communicativity of students within the diffuse groups formed (formations of students whose behaviour is determined by the presence of specific interests linked to the assimilation of educational material or the realisation of a group-selected stereotype of behaviour in class) create the necessary organisational methodological conditions in order to fulfil various pedagogical approaches, some of which have the priority of being called system technologies.
A similar technology, which has a large field of activity and methodological realisation, is the Dalton technology; it can also be called “project-research methodology” at the beginning of the empirical analysis.
The consolidation of knowledge about a project (well-known in school practice, beyond the natural understanding of “project training”), as well as the development of skills for the fulfilment of research behaviour and mentality in students (similar, for instance, to the application of the technology of analysis of concrete situations, which are essentially mono-research problem-based situations) create the feeling that what is meant is a method (a private technology) which will combine two methodologically proven pedagogical nostrums.
Dalton is a city in the USA (the state of Massachusetts), where this technology (its initial variant) was first used in city schools.
113
Section 5. Pedagogy
In 1911, the American educator Helen Parkhurst reached the conclusion that in modern schools students are not enabled to “show their natural desire and striving to voice their thoughts publicly, to ask questions, to play.” She created an innovative method, known as the “Laboratory Plan”, through which she tried to activate the socium of children, developing above all their bodies, minds and abilities. This idea is underpinned by the requirement to reach a unity between the activities of teachers and students, on the basis of individualisation of the learning goals.
H. Parkhurst began her research work when she was only a village teacher. In the beginning, she worked with a group of 40 children, dividing them into 8 groups. She faced a real dilemma: how to organise the work of these 7 reduced groups while purposefully dealing with the students of the last, 8th group. She came up with a brilliant solution — the best way was to give every child a task while she was finishing work with the others. In the beginning, older students helped her in this initiative.
Many literary sources confirm the version that for her systematic school and research work, she did not only use the classroom, but also all sorts of other premises (“for this purpose, I even reorganised the warehouse, transforming it into a room in which every subject found its corner”). The lack of specialised material facilities in those days made her think that she could create the so-called by her “subject laboratories”. As she herself admitted, those were “corners” where almost 7/8 of all the classes took place. Consequently, the idea of creating subject laboratories became a main programme and conceptual feature of the “Dalton Plan” [11].
The formation and implementation of the idea of “subject laboratories” created conditions (strictly methodological and subject ones) to move to a cardinal reorganisation of school stereotypes and educational behaviour. The first steps in this regard were made in the remote 1913, when in the school where H. Parkhurst had conducted her experiment the schedule was partially reorganised, and in 1915 the schedule of classes — in their traditional form of presentation as a weekly timetable — was altogether absent. She had worked for more than 9-10 years on this idea (starting with the original approbation in 1911), and in 1919 applied this technology for the first time in a systematic plan when teaching disabled children. One year later, she carried out her long planned research into the upper school grades. For this purpose, she chose the city of Dalton, located in the state of Massachusetts, which in its own way promoted this so successful educational technology.
She was a follower of M. Montessori and J. Dewey. According to her, students ought to work at a pace adequate to their abilities, since a forced pace of work is ineffective. She believed that the natural rhythm of school activity is disrupted by breaking it down into classes.
“She claimed that the failure and backwardness of children at school are associated with the established schedule of weekly classes. H. Parkhurst’s idea is to provide children with maximum independence for the realisation of peaceful and productive activity. The lesson is cancelled as a form. The classroom is replaced with a laboratory for doing one’s own research. The subject school system is restructured. School disciplines are divided into basic (maths, English, history, science, foreign languages and geography) and non-basic (music, art, sport, physical education, home economics). At the beginning of the school year, the teacher familiarises his/her students with the annual plan, which includes tasks on individual subjects” [6, 69-70].
Conceptually and functionally, the Dalton technology aims to ensure the active expression of students’ personalities; to ensure active development of their social experience at the expense of the more active use of the method of cooperation, as well as to foster taking responsibility in educational and cognitive activities.
The Dalton technology fulfils three basic principles, which in a complete whole exert influence on the learning process: freedom, independence, cooperation [17].
At this stage, it could be stated that in the separate countries around the world, particularly in the European and English speaking ones, it is not uncommon to see such technologies striving to implement that trinity: the Jena Plan, the Dalton Plan, Waldorf, the target act method, the projects-based method. A point of interest is the Jena Plan, having been used for over 40 years in Dutch schools. The idea set in it relies on “the perception of school as a place where a community in which one can be taught and live simultaneously can successfully be created and operated”. The main activities are dialogue, games, work and holidays.
“One of the great advantages of working on the Jena Plan is the possibility to receive help from a classmate, from a group the same or higher in age or achievements. On the other hand, the person who provides assistance improves his/her own competencies and therefore the children are taught responsibility and collaborative work. In order for this to happen, an important prerequisite is textbook literature, which is skillfully constructed in order to allow building upon the educational content, through the usage of the spiral approach for its arrangement” [17, 176].
114
Секция 5. Педагогика
The main principle set in this pedagogical technology is based on the self-development of each student on the basis of his/her cooperation with the ones surrounding him. The student is placed in a different environment, not so strictly fixated on time and space, facilitating his/her choice regarding the studied topics and thematic units; he alone sets and complies within optimal range a fixed pace for work; the search method, selection and systematisation of the necessary educational information; independent choice of the methods and ways of evaluation of the accumulated knowledge by the teacher.
Each student has the complete organisational freedom to participate in classes by choosing in advance the manner (form) of participation: individually; grouped; or by creating a pair with another student [3].
An interesting methodological issue occurs immediately, related to the question — to what extent is the student able to “manage the henceforth achieved educational freedom" of action? In a purely methodological aspect, such freedom is possible within the limits of where it would be accountable for by the teacher. Realisation of training, at the base of which is the interpersonal educational training, to some extent delegates other possible boundaries that depend on the degree of “achieved” (“reached") personification of the educational plan and the ability of each student to impose an optimal working pace.
I. G. Voronchihina, based on the historical and pedagogical research conducted by her, asserted that between the Dalton Plan and project-based training there were many common features (an interesting historical retrospection, having in mind the various historical lags of comparison). Both the Dalton Plan and the project-based method can be considered distinct combinations of the application of a series of mono-didactic systems, which with the Dalton Plan suppose more systematic management. The traditional education is characterised by the systematic form of the informational process and “manual" management tools; the “consultant" monosystem; “the usual academic book"; gradually channeling the informational process towards the realisation of automatic means of control.
In the composition of the methods, typical of the traditional project training, the following systems are included: traditional training; “consultant" and “the usual academic book". A peculiar method of the projects is the presence of the monosystemic “small group" and “tutor", generated on the basis of closed control and the predominant use of manual tools for managing the process of project activity of students [2].
Collaborative learning, based on the example shown, originated at the beginning of the 1920s. Within the limits of a possible pedagogical technology, collaborative training begins to take form actively after 1970. The basic terms and principles were set through the participation of three American scientists: R. Slavin (1990), R. Johnson and D. Johnson (1987), D. Aronson (1978) with the active participation of a group of Israeli scientists, headed by Shlomo Sharan (1988).
The two conceptual methods have certain differences, which in no way can be classified as being “principle" ones. In the USA, the primary programme objective of collaborative learning is “the formation of certain habits and skills; assimilation of concepts; of theoretical and applicable knowledge, designated in the curriculum. In Israel, and in many countries across Europe, a similar in nature tuition possesses for a main educational and functional determiner “the project activity of students", with active group discussions being organised and conducted". Not only on the sole basis of these comparisons can the conclusion be made that these two options complement each other very well. Indexation at certain stages of the learning process of the phenomenon “error" goes to show that the student failed to assimilate, in the required system and methodological depth, the necessary learning material and that he/she needs additional practice. Since the teacher, at times, is incapable of providing effective support, these rights are naturally delegated to others — the students. The process of active socialisation gives an opportunity for many of the students to develop systematic communication skills [15].
According to A. V. Hutorsky, learning through collaboration should be regarded as a person-centred type of technology, based on the establishment of individual educational trajectory under the guidance of a teacher. This is made possible with the realisation of the following methodological options:
• freedom of choice and expression of the individual meaning and purpose in each course, topic and lesson;
• the right to personal interpretation and understanding of the fundamental concepts and categories;
• the right to compose individual educational programs for the target course during the term and the year;
• freedom of choice to set an individual pace of learning, forms and methods of solving educational programmes, means of control, reflection and selfevaluation;
• individual choice of additional topics and creative activity based on subjects [16, 1-2].
115
Section 5. Pedagogy
In many of the declared features, which are included in collaborative learning, postulates are found underpinning the concept of the Dalton Plan.
According to A. V. Hutorsky, the person-centred approach implies increasing the role of the student in the learning process, its activity focus. The objectives, content, forms and methods of learning; the control of the results and the other didactic elements, reveal their need to be measured to the interests and the inclinations of the students. To provide a choice for the individual educational trajectory, within the boundaries of each studied course. The personal orientation in the present case does not focus directly on the student, but rather is derived from the student him-/herself [9, 7].
Thus, the so topical of late act of “self-determination" of the student regarding the specific educational content; educational issue; learning problem; training course enable him/her to set for him-/herself specific goals and objectives, on the basis of which he/she can afterwards perform his/her individual educational trajectory. The student has the right to designate the scientific problems which interest him/her, presented in many of the cases in an axiomatic aspect, and consult with the teacher on the basis ofthis discernment and selectivity; to coordinate his/her individual program with the common educational program [14].
I. S. Yakimanska emphasises that the person-centred training presupposes the availability of a correlation between certain requirements in which these clearly dominate:
- design of the study material, taking into account the subjective experience from the previous period of tuition of the student; organisation of the study material in such a way as to enable the student to achieve a specific, rationalised choice in the course of performing the study tasks;
- active encouragement of the student to display selfevaluative educational activity in order to ensure the necessary capabilities for self-education, self-development, self-expression in the course of acquiring academic knowledge;
- stimulation of the student towards individual choice of various didactic methods and means of reworking the study material, which is of compulsory and regulatory nature;
- ensuring monitoring and evaluation not only on the final result of the training, but also on the very process of learning [19, 8].
For the realisation of the training strategy, related to the Dalton Plan, several didactic performances (positions) are planned and gradually implemented:
1. Formulating the fundamental functional principles upon which the concept of this pedagogical strategy is built, namely:
1.1. principle of freedom of choice;
1.2. principle of autonomy in actions;
1.3. principle of cooperation in the course of practical training.
2. The training tasks, due to their specific place in the general methodological scheme, have a number of characteristics, which are mandatory in the course of the preliminary design of the curriculum and in the course of choosing the methods and instruments for its realisation.
3. Cooperation and individual freedom in the course of programmed tuition is achieved by using the following organisational lesson forms:
3.1. role and location of the training “laboratory”;
3.2. significance of the “combined” lesson in the course of personalised training;
3.3. place of the Dalton class and the conference in the course of realisation of the individual study plan of each student.
The principle of freedom consists in the right of the student to choose the subject, topic, partner, forms, methods and forms of work. In this case, all these variables are subject to a mandatory curriculum. In the course of realisation of the particular curriculum, every student accounts for him-/herself individually in front of the teacher, thus combining the freedom of choice and activity with the responsibility of their own actions and behaviour.
The principle of cooperation finds the most functional relations in already existent traditional forms and methods: individual, group, paired, in the boundaries of established diffusional or referential monogroups. The student has the right to refer to every single possible subject, which by his/her own judgement could help the process of solving the problematic tasks set: teachers, classmates, parents, acquaintances, specialists in one or another scientific or productive sphere.
The principle of autonomy overlaps, in a certain functional regard, with the principle of collaboration, as it generally sets a choice and planning for the independent subjective and cognitive activity of the student in the boundaries of the chosen thematic course [5].
A. I. Savenkov devotes a lot of time from his research endeavours to the idea of applying the Dalton Plan in Russia, a country which is characterised by a variety of pedagogical models, which at the beginning of the century did not follow a certain classic
116
Секция 5. Педагогика
model, realised to a certain degree in the other European countries.
In 1919, a certain pedagogical technology became a fact in Russia, which by its many distinctive features resembles the Dalton Plan.
It is named in a similar way — “studio system”. Scientists like R. B. Vendrovska, who deal with the history of pedagogy, advocate the thesis according to which this Russian pedagogical technology is the idea of P. P. Blonsky and his research “The labour school”, which was published during the also interesting year 1919. The main operational feature of the “studio system” is aimed strictly at the use of “research methods of education”. This, in its nature, is in significant methodical discrepancy with the conception which advocates the Dalton Plan, where tuition is established on the basis of using reproductive methods of tuition, which brings this innovational technology closer to its traditional form [11].
At this final stage, an interesting question of ascertainment emerges. Why under the conditions of educational indefiniteness do all “modern pedagogical technologies” attempt to turn towards models which have acted in a totally different social-public environment, and have solved seemingly easier educational and norm-oriented tasks?
The answer possibly lies in the strong “pragmatism” of the old pedagogical models with regard to modern ones. The modern educational environment is indefinitely conservative regarding two very important methodical moments: achieving freedom in the actions of the student; achieving professional freedom in the activity of the teacher.
The aspiration to unite pedagogical technologies, providing that the feature of subjective (communicative) freedom is missing, is simply untenable.
The modern pedagogical technologies, a large part of which interpret complexly presented models or such that have proven their efficiency in other conditions and other educational environment, can be verified based on the following dominant variables.
1. Pedagogical technologies, which in their own methodological basis rely on the “personal orientation of the educational process”.
2. Pedagogical technologies, which rely on the realisation of the requirement for “activation and intensification” of student activity.
3. Pedagogical technologies that rely on the realisation of the condition to perform “didactic improvement and reconstruction of the study material”.
4. The group of subjective pedagogical technologies, in which are usually included the subject technologies for native-language and mathematical training (in the models of R. A. Zaytsev; R. G. Hazankin).
5. Nature-oriented theories related to the natural instruction in literacy (by the model of A. M. Kush-nir) and the technology of self-development of M. Montessori.
6. The popular group of pedagogical technologies, associated with the development training, presented in the works of L. V. Zankov, D. B. Elkonin, V. V. Davidov, G. S. Altschuler.
7. The group of “alternative technologies” by the classical models of: the Waldorf pedagogy, “the technology of free labour”, “the technology of educational probability” (in the works of A. M. Lobok), “the technology of pedagogical workshops”.
8. Pedagogical technologies which became known by the name of “technologies of author schools”, with representatives: E. Y. Yambur, M. A. Ballaban, D. Howard, A. A. Katolikova [7].
An interesting idea is proposed by T. A. Prishtepa within the bounds of the traditional problem-oriented pedagogical technology (based on the formation of a positive inner motivation for learning). She names the pedagogical variation of group work “Alternative”, in the field of training heuristic in nature (advocated as an educational conception most strongly and confidently by A. V. Hotorsky).
The main tasks which the author of this concept sets are associated with:
- Enhancing the component of “conscious attitude” in real life situations; by the significance of their own perspective.
- Developing habits for “constructive, sequential, structured thinking”.
- Nurturing a culture of exchanging views, “freedom from aggressive pushiness”.
- Developing the abilities to see “emotions”, feelings and to understand their role in the process of thinking.
- Forming an understanding of the fact that complex situations exist, where a person is unable to realise all aspects of the problem, firstly through the “demonstration of the ambiguity of the possible solutions”.
In a functional aspect, the author relies on the realisation of cooperative activity of educational subjects:
- Own subject activity (the subject activity, as a rule, is dependent on the degree or element of complexity implied in the academic task).
117
Section 5. Pedagogy
- A set of processes that realise various connections and relations between the people during the course of such activity [10].
Reconsidering the place of pedagogical technologies, which despite their historical distance from the present have realised in action dynamic methodological models (here can be mentioned the place of the Winnetka Plan and its creator C. Washburne; the contribution of E. Collins, A. Flexner), a question arises — within what limits can modern schools become a kind of an experimental site, like the aforementioned “experimental schools" that
have contributed, albeit within limited boundaries, to change the basic educational paradigm of the constantly altering school?
Although only partial, the answer could lie in the need to achieve unity of the four major methodological components: the subject assimilation of academic information; development of reflexive activity at any given moment of the training; the formation of precise behavioural models in order to optimise the process of educational socialisation; achieving personal freedom within the bounds of group interaction.
References:
1. Velchev Iv. Quality of Education: National Realities and Global Project. Electronic resource. http://liternet. bg/publish9/ivelchev/kachestvo.htm.
2. Veronchihina E. G. Comparative analysis The Dalton Plan and the Method of Projects. The author’s dissertation. Electronic resource. http://elibrary.udsu.ru/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/557/05_03_005. pdf?sequence=2.
3. The Dalton technology. An electronic resource. http://studopedia.net/9_18825_dalton-tehnologiya.html.
4. Key data on the education in Europe, 2012. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_ data_series/134BG.pdf.
5. Krushin V S. Pedagogical Technologies - the Dalton technology. http://www.univer5.ru/pedagogika/peda-gogicheskie-tehnologii-kukushin-v.s/Page-66.html.
6. Mircheva K. Non-Traditional Pedagogical Approaches. Psychological Schools and Tendencies. Stara Zagora, -2012, - p. 69-70.
7. Basic Educational Technologies. An electronic resource. http://psyvision.ru/help/pedagogika/45-teory2/499-ped-oby55.
8. Poltava I. I., Kozlova G. I. Modern Pedagogical Technologies in a Modern Lesson. Zlatoust. Publisher MMC, № 74205, - 2009, - p. 35.
9. Prokopiev I. I. Pedagogics. Basics of General Pedagogics. Didactics/Studies tool. I. I. Prokopiev, N. V. Mihalkov-ich - Minsk: Tetra Systems, - 2002. - p. 7.
10. Prishtepa T. A. Pedagogical Technology “Alternative” in Problem-Based Training. http://www.eidos.ru/jour-nal/2005/0520-01.htm.
11. Savenkov A. I. From “Class-audience” to “Class-laboratory”. Press issue. http://www.researcher.ru/issledovani-ya/arhiv/a_3rs7ni.html.
12. Selevko K. G. Modern Educational Technologies: the Manual. - M.: National Education, - 1998. - p. 14-15.
13. Modern Pedagogical Technologies. Electronic resource. http://nsportal.ru/blog/shkola/obshcheshkolnaya-tematika/all/2011/11/04/sovremennye-pedagogicheskie-tekhnologii.
14. Structurally-Functional Model for Realisation of the Person-Centred Approach. shs_marh.krch.zabedu. ru/dop/pedvas/obrashenie.doc.
15. Technology of Cooperative Training in the Russian Language in Groups. SPO. Electronic resource. http://www.pomochnik-vsem.ru/load/publikacii_pedagogov/russkij_jazyk_literatura_razvitie_rechi_ obu-chenie gramote/tekhnologija obuchenija v sotrudnichestve na urokakh russkogo jazyka v gruppakh spo/16-1-0-4796.
16. Todorina D. Variations of Person-Centred Technologies of Training. “Personal development of the students in modern education and society”, - Blagoevgrad, Sankt-Peterburg, Elec, - 2007, - p. 1-2.
17. Totseva Janka. Collection Contemporary Training between Theory and Practice. S, - 2009, - p. 176.
18. Shubin.V. S. Dalton Technology in the Literary Education of Senior Students. http://www.bibliofond.ru/view. aspx?id=562800.
19. Iakimanska I. S. Technology of the Person-Centred Education. School Principal. Special issue № 7, - 2000, - p. 8.
118
