CC BY
0THE STRUCTURE OF THE LESSON AND iTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
IBRAHiMOV FIRADUN NADIR
doctor of pedagogical sciences, professor Shaki Branch of Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University Shaki, Azerbaijan
ABDULLAYEVA GULARA ABDURAHMAN
doctor of Philosophy in Philology, associate professor Shaki Branch of Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University, Shaki, Azerbaijan
Abstract. In the article, the lesson as a pedagogical event is interpreted as a system with a specific structure, containing both elements and relations between elements. It is stated that if we mentally distance ourselves from the nature of its elements and focus on the relationship between them, then we come across the concept of "lesson structure", which is the essence of the lesson system with its structure andfunction, i.e. with the nature of the elements and their behavior and relations, with the specificity of the relationship between the object and the conditions. is determined; the structure of the lesson acts as the law of relations of elements, as an invariant of the system.
It is explained in the work that increasing the efficiency of the lesson is determined by the adequacy of its structure to the goal, which is a system-creating component. At the same time, attention is drawn to the level of importance of the theory, which is considered the perfect form of scientific understanding regarding the structure of the lesson, despite the presented logical considerations. It is emphasized that the development of the mentioned theory is one of the unsolved problems in pedagogy.
In the article, the generalizations aimed at developing the theory regarding "the law of relations of elements, the structure of the lesson acting as an invariant of the teaching system " are formulated.
Keywords: complete, system, structure, social experience, organizational form of training, lesson, structure of lesson, substructure, internal and external substructure, logical-psychological substructures
Relevance of the research topic. A lesson is a system with a specific structure as a pedagogical event. A lesson is complete, containing both elements and relationships between elements. The elements contained in the lesson system are relatively indivisible parts. If we mentally distance ourselves from the nature of the elements of the lesson system, which is perceived as the main organizational form of training, and focus on the relationship between them, then we come across the concept of "the structure of the lesson". The essence of the lesson system is determined by its structure and function, that is, by the nature of the elements and their behavior, their relationships, and the specificity of the relationship between the object and the conditions. Without studying the elements that make up the system and their interaction, it is impossible to distinguish the continuous, important, and necessary invariant dependencies here. Without learning and opening the relationship of the elements with the whole formed by them, both the function of the system and the functions of each element with regard to the whole remain "in the shadow". Therefore, the structure of the lesson acts as the law of relations of elements, as an invariant of the system. Increasing the efficiency of the lesson is determined by the adequacy of its structure to the goal, which is a system-creating component. Despite the above logical considerations, the development of the theory, which is considered to be the perfect form of scientific understanding of the structure of the lesson, is one of the unsolved problems in pedagogy, but its importance is noteworthy. Therefore, we assert the relevance of the research on "The structure of the lesson and its structural elements" based on the (direct) dependence of increasing the efficiency of the lesson on the development of the theory of its structure and the lack of research in this direction.
Methodological basis of the study. In the process of conducting the research, it was formed as an important branch of dialectics and was formed as an important branch of dialectics and rose to
the level of its alternative, from the scientific-theoretical and theoretical methods of scientific cognition, from the internal relations of the forms of scientific cognition, from various pedagogical and psychological research generalizations. was used as a methodological basis.
Interpretation of generalizations based on research materials. Increasing the efficiency of the lesson depends to a great extent (directly) on the development of the theory of its structure. Understanding the way of existence of the "class-lesson system" (lesson) that can be interpreted as a form of cognitive action of the learners and the teacher in a cooperative relationship in the training process, that is, the understanding of the structure at an adequate theoretical level, determines the selection of optimal options for its organization and management according to the specific situation. We recognize that a "system" is complete, containing both the elements and the relationships between the elements. The dialectic unity of elements and structure is considered the main sign of the system concept. The interaction between the whole and the part finds its expression both in the dependence of the quality of the whole on the specific nature of the parts that make it up, and also in the dependence of the quality of these parts on the specific nature of the whole. [5; 8] Based on this logic we have presented, we claim that the "system-structural approach" is a reliable dialectical branch of detecting this dialectical dependence in a concrete situation, it is an "opportunity carrier" contained in dialectical logic.
In our opinion, a person can enter into a relationship with any reality (here we can distinguish the "class-lesson system" as a special case) at the level he understands it. Based on this generalization we have presented, we would like to note that at whatever level the educator perceives the reality of the "class-lesson system", the effectiveness of his organization and management of this process is adequately realized. [8; 19]
Let's not forget that approaching the understanding of any whole (form, event, processes) with a view called "system-structure" is a characteristic feature of the modern era (this is a value that should be encouraged). The "system-structural approach", which justifies itself as an important methodological method, is so fashionable in our modern times that there are even tendencies to evaluate it as an alternative to the dialectical method in the time period we live in, and we are also happy to be the subject of the said cognitive-tendency. In our opinion, the correct position here is this: the system-structural method is a branch of development that is able to keep up with the "scientific-technical-informational progress" from the dialectical method, where the traditional problem such as whole and part, their relationship, acquires a new content, and the relationship of whole and part there is talk of a more in-depth study. [7; 105-107]
By the way, let's also emphasize that in order to study any phenomenon (in general, reality) it is not enough to study only its individual parts, it is necessary to study the interrelationships and dependencies of these parts, to consider these parts as a whole, to study the whole. , which is related to the method of synthesis, which is the opposite of analysis in scientific cognition. [6; 70] In the first sense, the concept of a system is, on the one hand, a real material object of natural or artificial nature, that is, a fragment of reality separated by a subject from a certain point of view, and on the other hand, it acts as a reflection of this reality in relevant knowledge. In systematic studies, more attention is paid to this epistemological aspect of the issue - the organization and construction of knowledge in the form of a system. However, when taken as a whole, the character of the system depends not only on its materiality and ideality, but also on the organization and structure of its substrate - the elements that make it up. [15; 248-249]
Structure is the interaction of the processes, events, parts and sides of the subject taken as a whole, their relatively strong connection, relationship. (N.A. Kondakov). The concept of structure is also understood as variants of interactions formed between constituent elements in the process of activity. (V.V. Bykov) Usually, in the concept of structure, a qualitatively certain, relatively solid sequence and rules of the internal relations between the elements of the system are expressed. It can also be understood as a special arrangement of system elements. [13 ; 84]
The essence of the system is determined by its structure and function, that is, by the nature of the relations between the elements and their behavior, and by the specificity of the relationship
between the object and the conditions. Without studying the elements that make up the system and their interaction, it is impossible to distinguish the continuous, important and necessary relationships here. Such continuous, important and necessary interaction of elements characterizes the structure of the system. Therefore, the law of relationships of structural elements acts as an invariant of the system. The function of the system and the function of each element in relation to the whole remain "in the shadow" without learning and opening up the relationship of the elements with the whole, which they form. Therefore, the full concept is understood in terms of the system, it is the organization of that system. It is clear from this that each system has its own structure and the function that this structure carries; the system can be viewed as a whole consisting of the unity of its structure and function. Systems differ from each other not only by their structure and functions, but also primarily by the nature of the unity of structure and function, the nature of this unity. It should also be kept in focus that each system acts as a more perfect system than the system of a lower structural level.
A lesson has a structure, a structure as a pedagogical event, but when it comes to its definition, it is a relatively complex issue. [13;84] There are even those who say that "the structure of the lesson is one of the unsolved problems in pedagogy." [4; 259] According to V.A. Onishshuk, the structure of the lesson has three characteristics: a) content (what elements and stages the lesson consists of); b) sequence (in which order these elements are included in the process); c) relationship (how they are related to each other). [16; 135]. Academician M.M. Mehdizade shows that the structure of the lesson is determined based on its type, content and purpose. [4; 254]
It seems to us that the structure of the lesson should be explained on the basis of the specific features inherent in the processes of understanding and assimilation and the modern tendencies and perspective lines of the development of the educational process as a whole, and it should also be taken into account that this structure, with the acquisition of certain knowledge and the skills and habits corresponding to this knowledge, related to their logical regularities.
As it is known, the type of the lesson determines only its main directions. An important feature of the lesson is directly related to its structure, as the logic of the learning process is reflected in any lesson, the sequence of its stages and links is revealed. The logical structure of the lesson and the compatibility of its parts are very important signs for the structure of the lesson. Any of these should create a foundation for student activity. [1; 301-305]
In the course of the theoretical and practical search for ways to activate the training process, we come across very conflicting points of view about the structure of the lesson and its essence. Their analysis shows that in traditional didactics, the content of the concept of "lesson structure" was interpreted only as a sequence of teaching methods. Until the 60s of the 20th century, the empirically formed structure of the combined lesson, which was more widespread both in theory and in practice, was adopted as follows: inquiry; explanation of new material; reinforcement of newly learned material; homework. The methodology and relevant instructions require the teacher to strictly follow the indicated sequence.
Academician M.I. Makhmutov draws attention to this traditional content of the structure of the lesson and points out the existence of the following shortcomings: 1. None of the specified structural elements guarantee the development of students, any element of the traditional structure does not reflect the process of their cognitive activity. The construction of the lesson according to the scheme of "inquiry-explanation-reinforcement" does not create sufficient conditions for the realization of the idea of the developmental principle of training; 2. The structure of the lesson was derived from the goal of providing ready-made scientific results to the students, it was determined based on the analysis of external signs only, empirically, without taking into account the regularities of the mental activity of the students (even reflected in the name of the structural elements); 3. The traditional structure of the lesson does not stipulate the management of the process of teaching-cognitive activity of students. It does not give the teacher the opportunity to apply different forms and methods of training; 4. In the traditional structure, the result of training is not evaluated, and the process itself is ignored. [13 ;89-90]
[9;394]
Commenting on the discussed structure of the lesson, Professor B.A. Ahmadov wrote that according to the most widespread opinion, the structure of the lesson reflects the relationships between its stages. For example, organizing the class, checking homework, explaining and reinforcing a new topic, assigning homework. The disadvantages of this are as follows: 1. As can be seen from the types of lessons, those components cannot participate in all lessons (the repetition lesson may not have the element of imparting new knowledge, etc.); 2. Sometimes checking old knowledge and imparting new knowledge can be combined in a single process; 3. The teacher's arrangement of all lessons according to the specified sequence can never produce the desired effect; 4. The reduction of one or more of the elements of the structure or the change of the location of the elements means that the essence of the system has already changed. Therefore, if the structure changes, the lesson itself changes, becomes something else. The above-mentioned elements and their relationship reflect not the internal aspects of the lesson, but the external signs. The change of external signs may not be related to the essence. [2; 192].
We mostly agree with this opinion. Yes, defining the structural elements and clarifying their interdependence and influence is the main condition of the structure of the lesson. It should be noted that there is no unanimous opinion in this direction yet. B.A. Ahmadov rightly writes that we should reveal the internal elements of the lesson and determine the structure based on the relationships between those elements. With this opinion, he appreciates the position of V.T. Fomenko. [2; 192]
V.T. Fomenko writes that the structure of the lesson should be explained in terms of its didactic task, the content of the teaching materials used to achieve this task, and the system of principles used to convey the content to the student. Its advantages include the following: 1) elements are internal elements of the lesson; 2) they are quantitatively stable (cannot be increased or decreased); 3) elements cannot change their place (they are also stable from the point of view of sequence); 4) these elements always appear in the lesson. According to V.T. Fomenko, the general goal of the lesson (didactic task) is divided into sub-goals, the appropriate means (material, etc.) are selected for each sub-goal, and the corresponding system of principles (methods) is applied to each material (means). [7; 338]
According to Professor N.M. Kazimov, the main possible elements of the lesson are: attendance review; checking the performance of homework; familiarization with new teaching tasks; acquisition of new knowledge; formation of skills and habits; strengthening of knowledge and skills; testing and assessment of knowledge and skills; homework assignment. N.M. Kazimov also shows that the nature of students' practical and intellectual activity has a serious effect on the structure of the lesson. The teacher's style of activity in the lesson determines the students' style of activity. During the lesson, under the guidance of the teacher, the students' activity styles change. It is here that the internal mechanism of the structure of the lesson should be sought. Therefore, the changing styles of student activity during the lesson form the essence of the structure of the lesson. Due to the change in student activity, the structure of the lesson also changes. Teacher's and student's styles of activity, which connect with each other and complement each other, become the stages of the lesson. [3.;175]
N.V. Metelsky, slightly different from N.M. Kazimov, attributed the following to the structural elements of the lesson: 1) comprehension of new material; 2) reinforcement of new material; 3) problem (work) solution; 4) repetition of what was learned before; 5) checking the results of homework; 6) setting educational tasks for subsequent homework; 7) additional practical work of children; 8) accounting and control of knowledge and skills [14; 228]
M.N.Skatkin believes that the narration of the teacher, the questions asked by him, the performance of studies, problem solving, the teacher's explanation, etc. are the structural elements of the lesson. [17; 11] V.A. Unlike M.N.Skatkin, Onishshuk puts the internal elements of the learning process on the structural basis of the lesson. He separated micro and macro structures. The stages of the process of assimilation of new knowledge were taken as the main elements of the macrostructure: 1) actualization; 2) motivation; 3) the purpose of the lesson; 4) perception and understanding; 5) understanding; 6) generalization and systematization; 7) summarizing the results of the lesson; 8) homework. Macroelements of the structure are considered methods and means of didactic tasks at
each stage of the lesson. [16 ;52] N.A. Sorokin advocated the idea of putting students' activities on the basis of the separation of the structural elements of the lesson: 1) recovery of what was previously learned; 2) getting to know the factual material and mastering it independently (or with the help of the teacher); 3) repetition, transfer of knowledge to new content, studies; 4) homework [13;92]
One noticeable flaw cannot be ignored here: in this understanding of the structure of the lesson, the internal connection between the student's activity and the teacher's activity is not reflected, and the external form of the connection is not indicated. Furthermore, this structure excludes the deductive introduction of new material and the teacher's explanation. [7; 339 ]
A.A.Budarniy argues that the lesson consists of homogeneous and non-homogeneous teaching situations (one of which follows from the other in a certain order). The author considers this sequence and internal connection of parts to be the structure of the lesson. [12; 93] Such definition of the structure of the lesson is not objectionable, but the concept of "teaching situation" is relatively general, it can have different content. The purpose of the students' activity, the types and methods of its activity are not visible, while they are of great importance for the preparation and organization of the lesson.
In a situation where ways to activate the training process are being sought, a new approach to training methods is introduced, and new training concepts are emerging, the order of restructuring the lesson has naturally arisen. Discussions and searches were formed in two directions in the organization of training activities and the construction of the lesson. The first direction is reflected in the mastering of the learning material by elements and the creation of a step-by-step lesson. The second direction is spread as a synthetic construction of the lesson. During the mastering of the educational material by elements, in contrast to the traditional construction of the lesson, there is a systematic feedback since the work cycle includes "the teacher's explanation and the student's independent work". Further work is built on the basis of what has been achieved, and is managed by regular monitoring of the student's activity. But even in this case, the essence of the learning process does not change, the student's activity is controlled as a result of the teacher's information. A lesson based on elements can be considered a variant of a lesson on obtaining knowledge at a restorative level and solving similar independent tasks. The characteristic of the synthetic lesson is related to the characteristics of the learning process, which determine the general principles and regularities, general concepts, and the development of cognitive independence. Repetition and verification of what was previously learned is connected with the study of new material, which is characteristic of a synthetic lesson. Along with the study of new material, its strengthening and application is carried out. The synthetic lesson was the basis for organizing the problem lesson.
Summarizing the experience of Tatarstan teachers, I.I.Malkin tried to work out the model of the modern lesson. He characterized that system in three groups of structural components that have an interaction and mutual influence, and tried to reveal their main functional characteristics. [10] The first group includes the main, leading components (lesson content, teaching and learning activities combined with a single didactic goal). I. I. Malkin rightly assumes that the structure of the lesson as part of the whole learning process is determined by the structure of the learning process. The second group of components includes motivation and emotionality for learning, activation of previously acquired knowledge, personalization, accounting of learning results, teaching-educational environment, didactic and technical support. The third group of components "expresses substructures" of the lesson. I.I. Malkin defines the functional nature of these infrastructures. According to him, the methodological options of the lesson are determined by its organization methods, the type of the lesson is determined by the didactic goals, content and methods of the lesson, and the structure of the lesson is formed by the logic of the learning process, the sequence of its main stages and links. [11 ;501]
Polish didactician E. Fleming put forward the idea of uniformity of the structure of the lesson and the stages of students' cognitive activity. It includes the following in the principles of determining the structure of the problematic lesson: a) determining the volume and quality of the material; b) its systematization according to the logic of the educational subject; c) division of the material into easily
digestible parts; 9) mastering the parts with the guidance and help of the teacher; d) taking into account the individual rate of absorption. [18], [7;341]
M.I. Makhmutov shows that the main principle of building the structure of the lesson (the logic of the learning process, the stages of the teacher's and students' activities in the process of problematic assimilation of knowledge, their strengthening and application) has its psychological, epistemological and didactic foundations. The structural elements of a problem-based lesson suggest the idea that there are stages of problem-based learning. [13; 94-95]
One can basically agree with M.I. Makhmutov's position. The lesson itself is one of the components of the training process, being an important organizational form of training. There are connections between the components of training and the form. Depending on the type of training in the lesson system, its components have interdependence and determining relationships.
It is known from psychology that mastering something new requires the conscious activation of reference knowledge and skills, and the formation of new concepts and methods of action is impossible without application. This reality should be taken into account when determining the internal elements of the lesson. [8; 40-43]
In didactics, the term "internal" refers to psychological and logical phenomena. "Internal Element" shall have that meaning; they are distinguished from the external, any external is perceived as a manifestation of the internal.
Practice shows that the "step" called by M. N. Skatkin [17; 182] cannot be a structural element of the lesson. The step itself is determined by the structure of the lesson, any step is determined by the logic of the entire learning process and the general didactic purpose of the lesson. So, what are the structural elements of the lesson?
In order to determine which part of the lesson, which element is the structural component, structural element, it is necessary to formulate the requirement for the structure of the lesson. It is necessary to know what exactly the structure of the lesson reflects.
According to MI Makhmutov, the structure of the lesson should reflect the following: regularities of the learning process as a real event; the logic of the learning process; regularities of the appropriation process; the logic of acquiring new knowledge as an internal-psychological phenomenon; activities of teachers and students as external manifestations of the essence of the pedagogical process.
From this, we can conclude that the structure of the lesson should include such elements that reflect each of the regularities and types of activities shown in the interaction. In addition, the structure of the modern lesson should create conditions for ensuring the following: in accordance with the didactic principles, for purposeful learning and teaching interaction; for students to master the program material, to form solid knowledge, skills and habits in them; for systematic and organic interaction of education and upbringing of students; for individual, group and collective training; for the systematic repetition of previously studied material with application. According to him, the structure of the lesson should be considered at three levels: didactic, logical-psychological and methodical. [12; 41]
The lesson is an important component of the educational process, an integral part of it. Its content and composition are determined by the general goals of the school. Realization of the upcoming goal is possible thanks to the activities of teachers and students in a certain order and in a certain sequence. This sequence is determined by the logic of the training process. In fact, this logic is the student's cognitive movement from ignorance to knowledge.
It is a well-known fact that it is impossible to acquire new knowledge without reference to past knowledge and experience. The formation of any new knowledge (2nd stage) is based on actualization of the knowledge and experience acquired by the student (1st stage) and systematic application of the acquired knowledge and experience in theoretical and practical training activities (3rd stage). The purpose of the third stage is the formation of students' skills and habits. Therefore, it is impossible to build the structure of the lesson without taking into account the didactic goals, the content of the educational material, as well as the general methods of education. Actualization, the formation of
new concepts and methods of action, and the application of acquired ones act as stages of the learning process, and they are solved in one lesson as three generalized didactic tasks of the lesson, at different levels, regardless of its type. They are also components of the general didactic structure of the lesson (at the same time, they are the main stages of the lesson). [ 7;342-343]
The general didactic structure of the lesson is the general algorithm and general instructions for organizing the lessons. This structure is opened and concreted in the methodical structure of the lesson. Its elements are different types of activities of the teacher and the student. If the number of components of the didactic structure is constant, the number of elements of the methodical structure is a variable quantity. This determines many variants of the methodical structure of the lesson. It is practically impossible to give a single methodical structure for all subjects, for all types and types of lessons. This structure can only be imagined in the form of a model. The nature of the methodological substructure of the lesson does not depend only on the content of its general didactic structure. The latter reflects the main stages of training and modern lessons. The connecting links between these two structures serve the internal logical-psychological substructure of the lesson.
The internal infrastructure of the lesson consists of elements that reflect the teaching-cognitive process. Psychologists prove that the process of mastering begins with perception and includes a number of stages. The process of assimilation ends with the inclusion of new knowledge into the system of previously acquired concepts. It is quite clear that these elements of substructures cannot be seen, perceived or felt. They appear "with a logical eye" and are expressed in an external form by the elements of the methodical substructure: restore (reproduce) - by inquiry, studies, etc.; perception - listening to the explanation, paying attention, reading the topic, observing, etc.; understanding -correct answer, question, problem solving, topic analysis, judgment, word, term, knowledge, rule, etc. by proper application, etc.; generalization - being able to correctly connect separate parts of knowledge, with the correct determination of the location of new knowledge, etc. The functional interaction of these elements and their sequence determine the general logic of mastering. The creative nature of mastering is related to the logic of productive mental activity, the establishment and solution of the learning process. [7; 343-344]
If the problem indicator of the lesson is present in the structure of search activity stages, then it is natural that they are also imagined as part of the internal substructure of the problematic lesson: 1) creation of a problem situation and setting the problem; 2) putting forward a hypothesis and justifying the hypothesis; 3) proof of the hypothesis; 4) checking the correctness of the problem solution. Thus, the structure of a problem lesson differs from the structure of a non-problem lesson by the logical element of the cognitive process.
So, we can talk about three groups of elements of a problem lesson, each of them is united in an independent substructure: one is methodical, external, and two are general and productive mastering (internal). Together, they form the second level of didactic system components. The bases of the substructures differ from each other: the didactic structure is built on the basis of the system of didactic tasks and the logic of the learning process; didactic structure, methodical structure is established based on the special didactic structure of training; is built on the general logic of the internal general appropriation process; productive learning is based on the logic of the student's productive mental activity.
According to M.I. Makhmutov, for the creation of a single structure of the problematic-developmental lesson, optimal coordination of the khatji (methodical) sub-structure and the internal, logical-psychological sub-structures is important. Without the interaction of external and internal elements, there can be no structure of the lesson. The main thesis for this is that the didactic structure reflecting the content of the subject, the logic of the training and the main stages of the lesson should be accepted as a general algorithm, a general instruction for the organization of the lesson. The three sub-structures discussed then operate within the overall didactic structure and are its content. Therefore, it is necessary to search for the interaction of the external and internal elements of the lesson, as well as the single structure of the lesson itself, within the components of its didactic structure. [12;104]
As you can see, there are many opinions about the structure of the lesson and its structural elements. Analyzing all this and summarizing the theoretical materials we have obtained, we come to the conclusion that the structural elements of the lesson consist of the following: review of attendance; regulation of working conditions; identifying and referring to homework results; separation and actualization of what is necessary from the acquired and experience; turning the goals and tasks defined by the teacher in the lesson into the student's perceived goal and motivating the activity; familiarization with new educational material; acquisition of new knowledge; formation of skills and habits; use of knowledge and skills in synthesis with previously acquired system; testing and assessment of knowledge and skills; homework assignment. In each of these elements, there is both the teacher's guidance and the student's teaching activity. The teacher's style of activity in the lesson determines the student's style of activity.
The indicated elements are combined according to the didactic tasks of the lesson, this combination is made possible by their functional connection and forms the didactic structure of the lesson. The student's activity in the lesson is aimed at his education, upbringing and development, where the main direction is the assimilation of new things. Among the opinions expressed about the assimilation of the new, it can be considered more acceptable that the assimilation of the new includes three elements: the actualization of past knowledge and experience, the formation of new knowledge and methods of action, and the application of skills and habits. However, the condition that the student sets the goal of mastering something new in the learning process should be accepted here.
Although the goal to be set in the lesson is determined in advance by the teacher, its transformation into the perceived goal of the student takes place during the learning process itself. When the student's perceived goal is formed (conscious management of its achievement is possible), the actualization of necessary knowledge, the formation and application of new knowledge and methods of action can be realized, or rather, it can be realized through the cognitive activity of students. Therefore, among the elements of the didactic structure of the lesson, there is an element of turning the goal to be fulfilled in the lesson into the goal of the student.
Evaluation is also a necessary element of management forms. Conscious action requires knowing whether each particular task is performed correctly or incorrectly. Optimal performance is impossible without evaluation.
The structure of the lesson depends on the logic of the training and the choice of methods. The didactic structure of the lesson is the basis for determining its methodical structure. Here, the development, education and upbringing tasks of the training and the types of activities of the teacher and the student should be considered as the main ones. The logical-psychological structure of the lesson is determined by the general logic of the learning process and the logic of creative mental activity.
Scientific novelty of the research. 1Thanks to the research, a) the structure of the lesson acts as an invariant of the system, b) the effectiveness of the lesson is determined by the adequacy of its structure to the goal, which is a system-creating component, c) cognitive issues regarding the importance of the theory, which is considered the perfect form of scientific cognition regarding the structure of the lesson. was drawn to the attention of educators; 2. The generalizations aimed at developing the theory regarding "the law of relations of elements, the structure of the lesson acting as an invariant of the teaching system" have been formulated.
Practical significance of research. It can be hoped that practical educators will accept that the "Structure of the Lesson" acts as the law of relations of elements, the invariant of the system, that increasing the efficiency of the lesson is determined by the adequacy of its structure to the goal, which is a system-creating component, and that they are familiar with the generalizations directed to the development of the theory in the design of lesson models for various options can have a positive effect on the reduction of mistakes they can make.
The result. 1. Forms of training organization, including its main form of organization, the lesson is one of the components of the training process. As a component of a single system, the organizational form has mutual relations with other components of that system. The content and
methods of the training material are the content of the form of organization of the training. The dialectical relationship between content and form also exists between the content of teaching materials, teaching methods and forms of organization.
2. Due to the application of the optimal organizational form of education, a part of human social experience (a system of knowledge, skills and habits, creative experience, a part determined by a number of objectively based criteria of norms of coexistence belonging to a civilized society) is obtained by the student as a result of his activity. Therefore, a competent teacher, who is the subject of management in the learning process, organizes and manages the student's activities aimed at mastering that experience and, based on it, bringing his development and education closer to the model of a free human personality, he tries to make the student a subject who understands the purpose of his activity. A teacher who has transformed such a quality in himself regulates the logical (analytical and heuristic) activity of the student through the content of the educational material and the methods he uses in accordance with his perceived goals; manages the development of the student's independent cognitive abilities and creativity by directing the realization of his formal and dialectical activities to the extent possible and necessary.
3. Organizational forms of education, as well as one or another type of any of them, should condition the unity of the intelligent and intelligent types of mental activity of the student.
4. The structure of the organizational forms of training determines the appropriate management methods of the student's cognitive activity.
5. It is possible for the student's analytical and heuristic activity logics to develop as aspects of the unit in the conditions of optimal coordination of the structural components and substructures of the lesson, only in this case there is an opportunity to control the student's educational-cognitive activity.
6. Substructures of the course, the relations between them are related to the subsystems of the system to which this form of organization belongs.
LiTERATURE:
1. Abbasov A.N., Mammadzade R.R., Mammadli L.A.. Pedagogy: Muntakhabat (textbook for higher education institutions). Baku, "Mutarcim", 2021.
2. Ahmadov B.A., Rzayev A.G. Lecture notes on pedagogy (Teaching materials). Baku, "Maarif", 1983.
3. Kazimov N.M., Hashimov A.S. Pedagogy (Textbook). Baku, "Maarif', 1996
4. Mehdizadeh M.M. Ways to improve the educational process in secondary schools. Baku, "Maarf", 1982.
5. Mirzajanzadeh A.X. Introduction to specialization (teaching manual for gas and gas profile higher schools), Baku, BSU publishing house, 1990.
6. Nasirov V.H., Mammadov A.B. Methods and forms of scientific cognition. Baku, "Maarif11, 1980.
7. Ibrahimov F.N. Essays on the basics of optimal ratios of algorithmic and heuristic activity in training (monograph). Baku, "Mutarcim", 1998.
8. Ibrahimov F.N. A "system-structure" approach to the understanding of training (teaching material). Baku, "Mutarcim", 1999.
9. Ibrahimov F.N., Huseynzade R.L. Pedagogy (Textbook), I volume. Baku, "Mutarcim", 2014.
10. Malkin I.I. On the classification and rational combination of types of independent work of students in the lesson. // Issues of development of cognitive activity and independence of schoolchildren. Kazan, 1966.
11. Makhmutov M.I. Theory and Practice of Problem-Based Learning at School. Kazan, "Tatar Book Publishing House", 1972.
12. Makhmutov M.I. Problem-Based Learning: Basic Theoretical Issues. Moscow: "Pedagogy" Publishing House, 1975.
13. Makhmutov M.I. Modern Lesson. Theoretical Issues. Moscow, "Pedagogy" Publishing House, 1981.
14. Metelsky N.V. Didactics of Mathematics. General Methodology and Its Problems (Textbook for Universities). Minsk, BSU Publishing House, 1982.
15. Kopnin P.V. Dialectics as Logic and Theory of Knowledge. Moscow: "Nauka" Publishing House, 1973.
16. Onishchuk V.A. Types, Structure, and Methodology of Lessons at School. Kyiv, 1976.
17. Skatkin M.N. Improving the learning process. // Public education, M., 1976.
18. Fleming E. The structure of a problem-based lesson. // Public education, M.: 1966.
