CC BY
6PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
THE STRUCTURE OF THE LESSON FORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING EDUCATIONAL SPACE AND ITS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
Ibrahimov F.,
doctor of pedagogical sciences, professor Sheki Branch of Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University
Abdullayeva G.
doctor of Philosophy in Philology, associate professor Sheki Branch of Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6616156
Abstact
The article focuses on the interpretation of the concept of "structure", emphasizing that the lesson has a structure as a complex pedagogical phenomenon. It is stated that due to the application of the "system-structural" dialectical approach to the lesson, it is possible to better understand its basic elements, their relationship and effective management of the system, which does not take into account the didactic purposes, content of training material, as well as general teaching methods. it is impossible to build a structure. The general didactic structure of the lesson is a general algorithm, a general instruction for the organization of lessons. This structure is opened and concretized in the methodical structure of the lesson. Its elements are the different activities of the teacher and the student. The number of components of the didactic structure is constant, the number of elements of the methodological substructure is variable. 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 the organization of training and lessons adequate to the existing educational space. The connecting links between these two structures serve the internal logical-psychological substructure of the lesson. The combination of dialectical and logical forms of cognitive activity of students, a high level of their activity in performing these types of activities is possible in the conditions of optimal combination of structural components, elements of substructures of the lesson. Because only in this case there is an opportunity to manage the student's independent learning activities. The structures of lessons as an organizational form of learning, which includes different approaches, and the relationships between them are related to the subsystems of the system to which this form of organization belongs.
Keywords: system; structure; structural element; subsystem; lesson structure; stages of the lesson; teaching situation.
Relevance of the research topic
Improving the effectiveness and quality management of training depends to a large extent on the development of the theory of the structure of the course, which is its main organizational form. The issue of creating a perfect form of cognition related to the structure of the lesson has not been sufficiently resolved. It is no coincidence that such ideas as "the structure of the lesson is one of the unresolved problems in pedagogy" have found a place in the scientific literature. We believe that on the basis of the existence of this "gap", methodological approaches to the study of this problem have not been purposefully selected. Therefore, in order to clarify the structure of the lesson and the relationship of structural elements in accordance with the educational space, we claim the relevance of research on "The structure of the lesson and its structural elements formed in accordance with the existing educational space" using the dialectical method.
Interpretation of research materials
In the philosophical literature we come across different definitions of the concept of structure [4;17-18]. Let us recall that, in general, the interaction of processes, events, parts of the subject, the sides of the structure as a whole, is a relatively strong connection, their relationship. (N.A.Kondakov). The concept of structure is also understood as a variant of the interactions formed between the elements of the
composition in the process of action. (V.V.Bikov). Typically, the concept of structure refers to a qualitatively defined and relatively strong sequence and rules of internal relations between the elements of the system. It can also be understood as a special order of the elements of the system. [2;104-107]
As it is known, L. Bertalanfi pioneered the idea of system analysis. The idea was to try to study the properties of an object based on the properties of its parts.
In order for a research object to be considered as a system, it must meet the following requirements: 1) The object must consist of (complete) subsystems (parts); 2) The integration of subsystems into a single system should help to set the task correctly (for research purposes); 3) The property that determines the interconnection of subsystems in the system must be known; 4) The system must be part of a larger system (subsystem). [8;8]
Improving the effectiveness of the course depends largely on the development of its structural theory. [3; 11-15]. By looking at the lesson as a system, the application of a "system-structure" dialectical approach makes it possible to better understand its basilica structural elements and their relationships and to effectively manage the system.
There is no doubt that the lesson is complex and complex. Therefore, in order to more accurately plan and conduct a lesson, it is necessary to clearly imagine
its main structural elements, the various combinations that characterize the diversity of the lesson. [1; 301]. The lesson has the same structure and structure as a pedagogical event, but when it comes to defining it, it is a relatively complex issue. There are even those who say that "the structure of the lesson is one of the unresolved problems in pedagogy". Let's look at some of the views on the structure of the lesson.
According to V.A. Onishuk, the structure of the lesson has three features: a) composition (what elements, stages of the lesson), b) sequence (in what sequence do these elements include lessons), c) connection (how they are related to each other). [14;117-119]. M.Mehdizadeh shows that the structure of the lesson is determined on the basis of its type, content and purpose. [7;354-359]
It seems to us that the structure of the lesson should be explained on the basis of specific features inherent in the processes of perception, mastery, and modern trends and perspectives of the development of the learning process as a whole, it should also be taken into account that this structure is related to the acquisition of certain knowledge and the skills and habits that correspond to this knowledge, and their logical regularities. As you know, the type of lesson determines only its main directionsAn important feature of the lesson is directly related to its structure, as any lesson reflects the logic of the learning process, reveals the sequence of its stages and links. The logical structure of the lesson and the compatibility of its parts are very important features for the structure of the lesson. Any of these should create a basis for student activism.
In the process of theoretical and practical search for ways to activate the learning process, we come across very contradictory views on the structure of the lesson and its essence. The analysis of views shows that in traditional didactics, the content of the concept of "lesson structure" is interpreted only as a sequence of teaching methods. Until the 1960s, the empirically formed structure of the combined course, which was more widespread in both theory and practice, was accepted as follows: survey, explanation of new material, reinforcement, homework. The methodology and relevant instructions require the teacher to strictly follow the indicated sequence.
Noting this traditional content of the lesson structure, M.I. Mahmutov points out the following shortcomings:
6. None of these structural elements guarantees the development of students, any element of the traditional structure does not fully reflect the process of their cognitive activity.
The structure of the lesson on the "question-explanation-reinforcement" scheme does not create sufficient conditions for the implementation of the idea of the developmental principle of training;
2. The structure of the lesson (traditional) is aimed at giving students ready scientific results, which are determined empirically only on the basis of the analysis of the learning process on external features, without taking into account the regularities of students' mental
activity (not even reflected in the names of structural elements);
3. The traditional structure of the lesson does not condition the management of the process of teaching and cognitive activity of students. It does not allow the teacher to apply different forms and methods of teaching;
4. In a traditional structure, learning outcomes are not evaluated, and the process itself is overlooked. [9;84-90].
Commenting on the structure of the lesson, Ahmadov writes that according to the most common view, the structure of the lesson reflects the connections between the stages. For example, organizing a class, checking homework, explaining and reinforcing a new topic, giving homework. The disadvantages of this are as follows: 1. As can be seen from the types of lessons, these components cannot be present in all lessons (there may be no element of new knowledge in the re-lesson, etc.); 2. Sometimes the testing of old knowledge and the transfer of new knowledge can be combined in a single process; 3. A teacher's ability to build all lessons in the order shown can never be effective; 4. Reduction of one or more of the elements of the structure or relocation of the elements means that the essence of the system has already changed. Therefore, if the structure changes, the lesson itself changes, it becomes something else. The above elements and their relationship reflect the external features of the lesson, not the internal aspects. The change in external signs may not be related to the essence. [5;192].
We cannot disagree with these views. Yes, identifying the structural elements and clarifying their interdependence and impact is a key condition for lesson planning. It should be noted that there is still no consensus in this direction. B.Ahmadov rightly writes that we must reveal the internal elements of the lesson, determine the structure on the basis of the relations between these elements. With this in mind, he praised the position of VT Fomenko.
V.T. Fomenko writes that the structure of the lesson should be explained in terms of its didactic task, the content of teaching materials used to achieve this task and the relationship between the system of techniques used to deliver the content to the student. The advantages of this are: 1) the elements are the internal elements of the lesson; 2) they are quantitatively stable (cannot be increased or decreased); 3) the elements cannot be moved (they are also stable in terms of sequence); 4) These elements are always reflected in the lesson. [15]
According to the author, the general purpose of the lesson (didactic task) is divided into half-objectives, in each half-goal the appropriate means (material, etc.) are selected, each material (tool) is applied a system of appropriate approaches (methods).
According to N.M. Kazimov, the main possible elements of the lesson are: review of attendance, checking homework, acquaintance with new teaching materials: acquisition of new knowledge, formation of skills and habits, strengthening of knowledge and skills, testing and assessment of knowledge and skills, homework. N.Kazimov also shows that the nature of
students' practical and intellectual activity has a serious impact on the structure of the lesson. The teacher's behavior in the classroom determines the students' behavior. During the lesson, under the guidance of the teacher, students' behavior changes. It is here that the internal mechanism of the lesson structure should be sought. Thus, the changing patterns of student activity during the lesson form the essence of the lesson structure. The structure of the lesson also changes due to changes in student performance. Interconnected, complementary teacher and student activities are the stages of the lesson. [6; 175]
N.V. Metelski, in contrast to N. Kazimov, attributed the following to the structural elements of the lesson: 1) comprehension of new material; 2) strengthening of new material; 3) problem (study) solution; 4) repetition of previously learned; 5) checking the results of homework; 6) setting learning tasks for further homework; 7) additional practical work of children; 8) accounting and control of knowledge and skills. [12; 228]
M.N. Skatkin believes that the teacher's transportation, questions asked by him, the implementation of exercises, problem solving, teacher's explanation, etc. Are the structural elements of the lesson. [13; 182]. Unlike M.N.Skatkin, V.A. Onishuk puts the internal elements of the learning process into the structural basis of the lesson. He separated micro and macrostructures. The main elements of the macrostructure are the stages of the process of acquiring new knowledge: 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. The microelements of the structure are considered to be the methods and means of didactic tasks at each stage of the lesson. [14; 117-119]
N.A. Sorokin supported the idea of placing students' activities on the basis of separating the structural elements of the lesson: 1) restoration of previously learned; 2) acquaintance with the factual material and its independent (with the help of the teacher) mastering; 3) repetition, transfer of knowledge to new content, studies; 4) homework. [2; 339]
It should be noted that such an understanding of the structure of the lesson does not reflect the internal connection between the student's activity and the teacher's activity, it expresses the external form of the relationship. In addition, this structure excludes the deductive introduction of new material and the teacher's explanation.
A.A. Budarny considers that the lesson consists of homogeneous and non-homogeneous teaching situations (arising from each other in a certain order). The author considers this sequence and the internal connection of the parts as the structure of the lesson. Such a definition of the structure of the lesson is not objectionable, but the concept of "learning situation" is relatively general, it can have different content. The purpose of students' activities, types and methods of their activities are not visible, although they are of great
importance for the preparation and organization of the lesson. [3; 81-94]
With the search for ways to activate the learning process, a new approach to teaching methods, and the emergence of new learning concepts, a natural reorganization of the lesson has emerged. Discussions and searches were formed in two directions in the organization of training activities and lesson planning. The first direction is reflected in the mastering of the training material by elements and the creation of a step-by-step lesson. The second direction is spread as a synthetic construction of the lesson.
In contrast to the traditional lesson structure, there is a systematic feedback during the mastering of the learning material by the elements, as the work cycle includes the "teacher's explanation of the student's independent work". Subsequent work is built on what has been achieved, and the student's activities are monitored on a regular basis. However, 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. An element-based lesson can be considered a variant of a lesson on the acquisition of knowledge at a restorative level and the solution of similar independent work.
The nature of the synthetic lesson, the general principles and regularities, the acquisition of generalized concepts by students and the characteristics of the learning process that determine their development of cognitive independence. It is characteristic of a synthetic lesson that the repetition and verification of what has been learned before is connected with the study of new material. Along with the study of new material, its strengthening and application is carried out. It was the synthetic lesson that became the basis for the organization of the problem lesson.
Summarizing the experience gained by teachers of Tatarstan, I.I. Malkin tried to develop a model of a modern lesson. The author studied the lesson in a system-structural plan and considered it as a whole system. He described this system in three groups of interconnected and interacting structural components and tried to reveal their main functional characteristics.
The first group includes the main, leading components (lesson content, teaching and learning activities combined for a single didactic purpose). The author rightly assumes that the structure of the lesson as part of the whole learning process is conditioned by the structure of the learning process.
The second group of components includes motivation and emotionality for learning, activation of previously acquired knowledge, individualization, recording of learning outcomes, teaching and learning environment, didactic and technical support.
The third group of components represents the "substructure" of the lesson. I.I. Malkin defines the functional nature of these substructures.
According to I.I. Malkin, methodological methods of the lesson are determined by the methods of its organization, the type of lesson is determined by the didactic goals, content and methods of training, and the structure of the lesson is formed by the logic of the
learning process, its main stages and sequences. [11; 501]
Polish didactic E. Fleming put forward the idea of the structure of the lesson and the unity of the stages of students' cognitive activity. It includes the following in determining the structure of the problem lesson: a) determining the volume and quality of the material; b) systematization of the subject in accordance with the logic of the subject; c) dividing the material into easily accessible parts, d) mastering the parts under the guidance of the teacher and with the help of the teacher; e) accounting for individual rates of appropriation. [15]
M.I.Makhmutov shows that the main principle of the structure of the lesson is the logic of the learning process, the problem-based acquisition of knowledge, their consolidation and application in the process of establishing stages of teacher and student activities have their own psychological, epistemological and didactic bases. The structural elements of the problem-based lesson suggest that problem-based learning is a stage. [9; 84-90]
We can basically agree with M.I. Mahmutov's position. The lesson itself is an important organizational form of learning and is one of the components of the learning process. There is a relationship between training components and form. Depending on the type of training in the lesson system, its components are interdependent and defining.
It is known from psychology that the acquisition of new knowledge requires the conscious actualization of reference knowledge and skills, and the formation of new concepts and methods of action is impossible without application. This reality must be taken into account in determining the internal elements of the lesson.
In didactics, the term "internal" refers to psychological and logical events. "Internal element" means the same thing, they are distinguished from external ones, they are perceived as a manifestation of any external internal.
Practice shows that the structural element of the lesson cannot die in the "step" called by M.N. Skatkin [13; 182]. The step itself is conditioned by the structure of the lesson, is determined by the logic of any whole learning process and the general didactic purpose of the lesson. What are the structural elements of the lesson?
In order to determine which part of the lesson, which element is a structural component, a structural element, it is necessary to formulate a requirement for the structure of the lesson. It is important to know exactly what the structure of the lesson reflects.
According to M.I. Mahmutov, the structure of the lesson should reflect the following: the regularities of the learning process as a real event, the logic of the learning process, the regularities of the acquisition process, the logic of acquiring new knowledge as an internal-psychological event, the activities of teachers and students . [9; 104]
From this it can be concluded that the structure of the lesson should include its elements in such a way that they reflect each of the patterns of interaction and activities. In addition, the structure of the modern lesson has created the conditions for the following:
didactic principles, purposeful mutual learning and teaching interaction, students' mastery of the program material, the formation of solid knowledge, skills and habits, the intellectual development of students during independent work. Maximum activation of activities, for the development of their intellectual abilities: for the systematic and member interaction of training and education of students, for individual, group and collective learning, for the systematic repetition of previously learned material. According to him, the structure of the lesson should be considered at three levels: didactic, logical-psychological, methodological. [9; 84-90]
Lessons are an important part of the educational process, an integral part of it. Its content and composition are determined by the general goals of the school. The realization of the forthcoming goal is possible due to the activities of teachers and students in a certain order, in a certain sequence. This sequence is determined by the logic of the learning process. In fact, this logic is the student's movement from ignorance to knowledge.
It is a well-known fact that learning and mastering new knowledge is not possible without reference to past knowledge and experience. The formation of any new knowledge (Phase 2) is based on the actualization of the knowledge and experience acquired by the student (Phase 1) and the systematic application of acquired knowledge and experience in theoretical and practical learning activities (Phase 3). The purpose of the third stage is to develop students' skills and habits.
Therefore, it is impossible to build a lesson structure without taking into account the didactic goals, the content of the training material, as well as the general methods of teaching. Actualization, the formation of new concepts and methods of action and the application of mastery are the stages of the learning process, but they are solved in one lesson, at different levels, regardless of its type and type, as three generalized didactic tasks of the lesson. They are also components of the overall didactic structure of the lesson (as well as the main stages of the lesson). Training is also a functional link between actualization, the formation and application of new concepts and methods of action.
The general didactic structure of the lesson is the general algorithm of the organization of lessons, the general instruction (the first type). This structure is opened and concretized in the methodical structure of the lesson. Its elements are different types of teacher and student activities. If the number of components of the didactic structure does not change, the number of elements of the methodological substructure is a variable. This determines many options for the methodological structure of the course.
It is impossible to give a single methodological structure for virtually 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 the organization of a modern
lesson. The connecting links between these two structures serve the internal logical-psychological substructure of the lesson.
The internal structure of the lesson consists of elements that reflect the learning process. Psychologists prove that the process of assimilation begins with perception and covers a number of stages. The process of mastering ends with the entry of new knowledge into the system of previously acquired concepts.
It is quite clear that these elements of the substructure are not visible, perceived or felt. They appear "with a logical eye", are externally expressed by elements of the methodological infrastructure: to restore (reproduce) - with a survey, studies, etc .; perception - listening to the explanation, attention, reading the topic, observation, etc .; comprehension -correct answer, question, problem solving, topic analysis, judgment, word, term, knowledge, rule, etc. Proper application, etc .; generalization - the ability to correctly connect the different parts of knowledge, with the correct determination of the place of new knowledge, etc. The functional interaction of these elements and their sequence determine the general logic of mastery. The creative nature of mastery is related to the logic of productive mental activity, the formulation and solution of the learning problem.
If the problem indicator of the lesson is the presence in the structure of the stages of search activity, then, of course, they are also considered as part of the internal substructure of the problem lesson: 1) the emergence of a problem situation and problem statement; 2) making assumptions and substantiating hypotheses; 3) proof of hypothesis; 4) check the correctness of the solution of the problem. Thus, the structure of a problem-based lesson differs from the structure of a non-problem-based lesson in the logical elements of the cognitive process.
So, we can talk about three groups of elements of the problem lesson, each of which is combined 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 substructures differ from each other: didactic structure is built on the basis of system of didactic tasks and logic of learning process, didactic structure, methodical structure is built on the basis of special didactic structure of training, internal substructure of productive mastering is based on logic of productive mental activity is established. According to Mahmutov, in order to create a unified structure of the problem-development lesson, it is important to optimally combine the external (methodological) substructure with the internal, logical-psychological substructures. There can be no lesson structure without the interaction of external and internal elements. The main thesis for this is that the didactic structure, which reflects the content of the subject, the logic of learning and the main stages of the lesson, should be considered as a general algorithm for organizing the lesson, a general instruction. The three substructures we are talking about move within the general didactic structure and its
content. Therefore, it is necessary to search for the interaction of both external and internal elements of the lesson, as well as the single structure of the lesson itself within the components of its didactic structure. [9; 104]
As can be seen, there are many considerations about the structure of the lesson and its structural elements. Analyzing all this, summarizing the theoretical materials obtained, best practices or our own many years of experience and observations, we conclude that the structural elements of the course include: review of attendance, regulation of working conditions, determination and reference to homework results, and separation and actualization of necessary from practice, transformation of goals and objectives set by the teacher in the lesson into perceived goals and motivation of activities, acquaintance with new teaching material: acquisition of new knowledge, formation of skills and habits, use of knowledge and skills synthesized with previously acquired system , testing and assessing knowledge and skills, giving homework. In each of these elements, there is both teacher guidance and student learning activities. The teacher's behavior in the classroom determines the student's behavior. Gostarilan elementlar darsin didaktik vazifalarina uygun olaraq birla§ir bu birla§ma onlarin fuksional bagliligi ila mümkün olur va darsin didaktik strukturunu amala gatirir.
Darsda §agirdin faaliyyati onun tahsil, tarbiya va inki§afina yenalir, burada ba§lica istiqamat yeninin manimsanilmasindan ibaratdir. Yeninin
manimsanilmasi barada soylanilan fikirlardan bunu daha magbul saymaq olar ki, yeninin manimsanilmasi ozünda üq elementi ahata edir: kegmi§ bilik va tacrübanin aktualla§masim, yeni bilik va faaliyyat usul-larinin formala§masim, bacariq va vardi§larin tatbiqini. Lakin burada talim prosesinda yenini manimsamak maqsadini §agirdin oz qar§isinda qoymasi §arti qabul olunmalidir.
Although the goal of the lesson is determined in advance by the teacher, its transformation into the student's perceived goal takes place in the course of the lesson. When the student's perceived goal is formed (conscious management of its acquisition is possible), the actualization of the necessary knowledge, the formation and application of new knowledge and methods of action can be carried out, or rather, by the cognitive activity of students. Therefore, among the elements of the didactic structure of the lesson there is an element of the transformation of the goal to be achieved in the lesson into the goal of the student. Evaluation is also a necessary element of governance. Conscious action requires knowing that each specific task is performed correctly or incorrectly. Optimal action is not possible 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 methodological structure. The development, education and upbringing tasks of teaching and the activities of the teacher and the student should also be taken as a basis here. The logical-psychological structure of the lesson is determined by the general logic of the learning process and the logic of creative mental activity.
Finally, the results are as follows:
1. Forms of training organization, including its main organizational form, is one of the components of the learning process. As a component of a unified system, the organizational form interacts with other components of that system. The content and methods of the training material are relevant to the form of training organization. The dialectical connection between content and form also exists between the content of teaching material, teaching methods and organizational forms.
2. Part of social experience (system of knowledge, skills and habits, creative experience, part of the norms of coexistence of a civilized society determined by a number of objective criteria) is obtained by the student as a result of activity. Therefore, the teacher, who is the subject of management in the learning process, organizes and manages the student's activities aimed at mastering that experience (and on this basis, bringing development and upbringing closer to the model of free human personality), trying to become a subject who understands the purpose of student activities. With his perceived goals, the teacher regulates the student's logical and dialectical cognitive activity through the content of the learning material and the methods he uses accordingly. Manages the development of the student's independent cognitive abilities and creativity by directing his logical and dialectical activity to the possible and necessary proportions.
3. The organizational forms of learning, as well as any of them, should ensure the integration of this or that type of algorithmic and heuristic mental activity of the student.
4. The essence of the structure of organizational forms of training is the formation of methods aimed at ensuring the appropriate ratio of dialectical and logical forms of cognitive activity of the student.
5. The combination of dialectical and logical forms of cognitive activity of students, the high level of their activity in performing these types of activities is possible in the conditions of optimal combination of structural components, elements of substructures of the lesson. Because only in this case there is an opportunity to manage the student's independent learning activities.
6. The structures of the lesson, the relationships between them are related to the subsystems of the system to which this form of organization belongs.
Scientific novelty of the research
Referring to the "system-structure" approach methodology, the structure of the lesson and the relationship of structural elements in accordance with the educational space were clarified.
Theoretical significance of the research
Relying on the methodology of the "system-structure" approach, the existing theoretical gap is eliminated by clarifying the structure of the lesson and the relationship of structural elements in accordance with the educational space.
Practical significance of the research
By looking at the lesson as a system and applying a "system-structure" dialectical approach, it is possible to better understand its basilica structural elements and their relationships and to effectively manage the system.
References
1. Abbasov A.N., Mammadzade R.R., Mammadli L.A. Pedagogy: Muntakhabat. Baku, "Translator", 2021, p. 301-310.
2. Ibrahimov F.N. Essays on the basics of optimal relations of algorithmic and heuristic activity in training. Baku, "Translator", 2020, pp.104-107; 335347.
3. Ibrahimov F.N. Intra-system relations in training. Baku, "Translator", 2019, p. 11-15.
4. Ibrahimov F.N. A "system-structural" approach to learning comprehension. Baku, "Translator", 2021, pp.17-18; 81-94.
5. Ahmadov B.A., Rzayev A.G. Lecture notes on pedagogy. Baku, "Maarif", 1983, p.192.
6. Kazimov N.M., Hashimov A. §. Pedagogy. Baku, "Maarif', 1996, p.175.
7.Mehdizade M.M. Ways to improve the educational process in secondary schools. Baku, "Maarif", 1982, p. 254-259.
8. Mirzajanzade A. X. Introduction to the specialty. Baku, Baku University Publishing House, 1990, p.8.
9. Makhmutov M.I. Modern lesson. Moscow, Enlightenment, 1981, pp. 84-90; 104.
10. Makhmutov M.I. Problem learning. "Enlightenment", Moscow, 1975, p.52.
11. Malkin I.I. On the classification and rational combination of types of independent work of students in the classroom. //Issues of the development of cognitive activity and independence of schoolchildren. Kazan, Tatar book publishing house, 1966, p.501.
12. Metelsky N.V. Didactics of mathematics. Minsk, 1982, p. 228.
13. Skatkin M.N. Improving the learning process. Moscow, Rotaprint, 1976, p. 11; 182.
14. Onischuk V.A. Types, structure and methodology of the lesson at school Kyiv, 1976, p.52; 117-119.
15. Fleming E. The structure of the problem les-son.// Public Education, 1966, No. 6.
