Pedagogical technology based on a system of effective lessons (A.A. Okunev)

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday

Okunev Anatoly Arsenievich. Development and implementation of philosophical and pedagogical ideas of the “French Group of New Education” (GFEN) in the experience of modern schools in Russia: Dis. ...cand. ped. Sciences: 13.00.01: St. Petersburg, 2001 302 p. RSL OD, 61:02-13/522-1

Introduction

CHAPTER 1. System of philosophical and pedagogical views GFEN 4

1.1. GFEN - "French Group of New Education" (Groupe Francais d" Education Nouvelle) 9

1.2. Joint work of teachers from Russia and France to create a new pedagogical paradigm 27

1.3. Problems and contradictions of mass school 32

CHAPTER 2. Implementation of philosophical and pedagogical ideas of GFEN, design of a school educational lesson 42

2.1. Pedagogical meaning of the concept “workshop” 42

2.2. Workshop as a form of organization educational process...45

2.3. Features of Knowledge Construction Workshop 60

2.4. Writing Workshop 109

CHAPTER 3. Polycentric educational technology 136

3.1. Structure of polycentric technology 140

3.2. Stage of selection of basic concepts of the topic 145

3.3. Workshop for building knowledge of basic concepts 146

3.4. Self-diagnosis stage 146

3.5. Stage of the “living word” 151

3.6. Theoretical enrichment stage 158

3.7. Stage of external reflection and self-control 161

3.8. Dialogue as one of the organizational forms of classes in polycentric technology 163

CONCLUSION

1. The influence of the pedagogical paradigm of New Education on pedagogical reality 175

2. Solving the problems of “New Education” is the basis for improving its philosophy and methodology 177

ANNEX 1

Calendar of joint activities of GFEN and Russian teachers 186

Introduction to the work

The relevance of research. Currently in Russia there is an active search for the philosophical basis of a new educational system. The relevance of the problem of searching for a new philosophy of education increases in conditions of: a) a change in the mentality of society; b) changes in the educational paradigm; c) Russia’s entry into the global educational space; d) the emergence of various educational technologies; e) the ever-increasing desire of Russian teachers to make the transition to new system professional life.

The attention of society was attracted by: contradictions caused by pedagogical attitudes generated by the scientific-technocratic paradigm still dominant in school, obvious rejection modern child authoritarian teaching methods; the child himself, his system of life values, meanings, relationships with the world are increasingly coming to the fore; ways for him to acquire real rights as a subject, and not an object, of the educational process; the personality of a teacher capable of constructing an educational process based on the active position of the student, on the value-semantic equality of an adult and a child, on the recognition of a person’s ability to independently build their knowledge.

The desire to change the pedagogical paradigm, to structure the educational process differently, led to the emergence in domestic practice of a number of educational technologies with a humanistic orientation. Among them: humane-personal technology of Sh.A. Amonashvili, technology of individualization of training (Inte Unt, A.S. Granitskaya, V.D. Shadrikov), collective method of teaching CSR (V.K. Dyachenko, V.V. Arkhipova) , “Dialogue of Cultures” (V.S. Bibler, S.Yu. Kurganov), implementation of the theory of stage-by-stage formation of mental actions (M.B. Volovich, P.Ya. Galperin), system of developmental education by L.V. Zankova, technologies of development training based on generalizations by V.V. Davydov.

These domestic educational technologies, in their humanistic orientation, echo a number of well-known foreign pedagogical systems, interest in which has increased in the last decade (see, for example, the works of N.V. Clarin, M.N. Pevzner, G.B. Kornetov), ​​in in particular, with the technology of free labor (S. Frenet), the technology of self-development (Montessori), the technology of the workshops of the French group of “New Education” (GFEN).

A comparison of the indicated educational technologies shows that their authors work in a pedagogical culture that is close in content and semantics. Against the background of the openness of the modern pedagogical space, there is an interpenetration of ideas, principles, and meanings. At the same time,

Research studying the development of an educational system that arose at the crossroads of cultures, at the intersection of pedagogical paradigms, at the intersection of methodologies, is extremely insufficient, although science has repeatedly proven that the most fruitful way to generate ideas is to study a problem at the border of different positions, different in topic, in form expressions, but general in essence.

When choosing a research topic, attention was focused on the philosophical and pedagogical ideas of the French group of “New Education” in the context of the modern school in Russia. The combination “philosophy of “New Education”” in this case is to some extent metaphorical and symbolizes the presence of an international pedagogical community that worked in line with similar philosophical and pedagogical ideas, focused on the belief that “everyone is capable.” But in each country, the implementation of the philosophy of “New Education” has its own specifics. This determined the choice of the topic for the dissertation research, “Development and implementation of the philosophical and pedagogical ideas of the French Group “New Education” (GFEN) in the experience of modern schools in Russia.”

Purpose of the study: highlight the main philosophical and pedagogical views of the "French Group "New Education"" (GFEN), study the possibilities of their use in the modern school of Russia. Formulate the classification parameters of technology reflecting the philosophy of the New education.

Object of study: theoretical and practical experience of GFEN in relation to the pedagogical culture of Russia.

Subject of study: the school educational process, built on the basis of the philosophy of “New Education”.

Research hypothesis: the development of the philosophical and pedagogical views of the French group GFEN based on the meanings and principles generated by the problems of domestic education is capable of producing qualitative changes in pedagogical reality at the level of:

formation of new positions of participants in the educational process (teachers, students, parents);

transformation of the dominant knowledge of both teacher and student;

structure changes cognitive process in accordance with humanistic principles and ideas of humanization;

changes in the meaning of the concepts of teaching and upbringing in the minds of a teacher, methodologist, and parents;

changes in the principle of selection of content and teaching technology.

The purpose, subject and hypothesis of the study predetermined the need to formulate and solve the following problems:

Carry out a theoretical analysis of the philosophical and pedagogical views of GFEN.

To identify contradictions in the school education system and the lesson as the main form of organizing the educational process.

To carry out a phenomenological description of the concept of “workshop” as a form of organizing the educational process in the system of “New Education”.

Determine the directions for the development of GFEN ideas and principles inherent in our culture.

Build educational technology based on philosophy "New education".

Theoretical and methodological basis of the study were inspired by the ideas and theoretical generalizations of the views of the French philosopher Henri Bassis, the results of reflection on the experience of GFEN leaders Odette Bassis, Michel Ducom, Pierre Collin, the provisions of L.S. Vygotsky on the relationship between development and training, the development of types of generalization in training by V.V. Davydov, methodological foundations personality development in the historical and evolutionary process by A.G. Asmolov, the theory of the phased formation of mental actions by P.Ya. Galperin, the psychology of education by N.F. Galyzina, didactic principles of L.V. Zankov, M. Bakhtin’s theory of dialogue, M. Heidegger’s research on the connection between words, language and the culture of the people, the position on the role of psychoanalysis in stimulating the creativity of Z. Freud, the philosophy of “gap” in creative process G. Bashlyar, the theory of self-actualization of personality by C. Rogers, the humanistic principles of A. Maslow, the concept of a paradigmatic approach to the analysis of pedagogical reality by I. A. Kolesnikova, the ideas of pedagogy of identification by O. G. Prikot, conclusions obtained during the study of children’s attitude to knowledge and the process of cognition by S.G. Vershlovsky.

The main research methods used were:

theoretical analysis of domestic and foreign literature (philosophical, pedagogical, psychological and didactic);

method of open observation of the real educational process;

conceptual synthesis, study and generalization of the practical experience of GFEN teachers in the school educational process;

individual and group reflection;

analysis of video recordings of workshops of teachers from France, teachers from Russia, audio recordings of speeches at conferences on “New Education”;

survey (interview, questionnaire),

pedagogical design;

experiential learning.

Experimental base of the research: experimental research work was carried out in the process of conducting seminars with teachers of St. Petersburg, with teachers from numerous regions of Russia: Yakutia, Irkutsk, Novosibirsk, Blagoveshchensk, Tomsk, Tyumen, Kurgan, Kazan, Samara, Pskov, Novgorod, Veliky Ustyug, Protvino, Moscow, with Baltic teachers.

From 1990-2000, more than two dozen seminars and internships were held for Russian teachers (see Appendix 1). Since 1998, the UPM has hosted a permanent seminar of the Association “St. Petersburg New Education”.

The following are submitted for defense:

system of philosophical and pedagogical ideas of “New Education”;

ways to implement the “New Education” methodology through knowledge construction workshops and writing workshops;

polycentric educational technology.

The logic of the study included the following stages:

Theoretical search (1990-1994), where acquaintance with the experience of French colleagues took place, participation in internships conducted by them in St. Petersburg, Moscow, France. Work in the workshops was necessarily accompanied by reflection both at the workshop and after it, and after some time had passed. Reflection made it possible to highlight the features of philosophy, to understand the structure of the workshop, and to highlight its algorithm.

Methodical (1995-1997), during which the knowledge of philosophical and pedagogical ideas continued - the basics of the workshop and the creation of workshops using a dedicated algorithm, the construction of new algorithms.

An experimental search (1997-1998), in which the philosophy of the “New Education” teacher was studied, its advantages and disadvantages were highlighted, positions developed by our philosophical and psychological science were selected, which are capable of enriching the philosophical and pedagogical ideas of the GFEN group with new meanings.

Analytical (1998-2000), where the methodology of New Education was built, based on selected philosophical and pedagogical principles.

Systematization (2000-2001), which made it possible to generalize and structure all the material obtained as a result of the research.

Scientific novelty and theoretical significance of the research:

the philosophical and pedagogical basis of the “New Education” methodology was studied for the first time, the process of its comprehension was studied And development by Russian teachers;

the essential characteristics of the “workshop” as a new form of organizing the educational process are described;

a philosophical, pedagogical and psychological analysis of the creative educational process taking place in the workshop is given;

the construction of a new educational technology that meets the pedagogical paradigm of “New Education” is theoretically justified. Practical significance due to:

creation of a set of teaching aids based on the philosophy of “New Education” for teachers, students, and parents;

implementation of polycentric technology in the process of school education;

creating videos on the issues of teaching primary schoolchildren.
Credibility provided by: a representative sample of participants

experimental activities in line with “New Education” (18 regions of Russia); duration (more than 10 years) of experimental training in various types of conditions educational institutions(about 30 schools, two pedagogical colleges, two pedagogical universities, about ten teacher training institutes); analogy to the results of a multi-level examination carried out both by carriers of the philosophy of “New Education” from France (about 60 people) and by various groups of participants in the educational process (students, teachers, methodologists, scientists from pedagogical universities, parents) in Russia.

Approbation and implementation carried out at the level; internships in Russia and France (1990-2000); speaking at Russian and international conferences and seminars, through numerous publications, including textbooks in the Prosveshchenie publishing house, recommended for publication by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.

Structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of three chapters, introduction, conclusion, bibliography and appendices.

GFEN - "French Group of New Education" (Groupe Francais d" Education Nouvelle)

The study of the pedagogical paradigm of “New Education”, born in Russia in the 90s, must begin with a theoretical analysis of the philosophical and pedagogical views of the GFEN “French Group of New Education”, since it was this that helped domestic teachers qualitatively change the understanding of pedagogical reality. The time of birth of the “New Education” both in France and in Russia was characterized by rapid changes in public life.

Progressive ideas in pedagogy were born against a favorable socio-cultural background, replete with creative processes.

GFEN - “French Group New Education” arose at the beginning of the 20th century, when the search for new forms became especially intensified in all spheres of culture: a new form of the novel (Marcel Prussi), painting (Kazimir Malevich), drama (Maurice Maeterlini), philosophy (Friedrich Nietzsche) , theater (Antonin Artaud). GFEN was formed in 1920, when polarization in society reached its limit and there was a shortage of opportunities to realize personal potential.

The moment of creation of GFEN coincided with the decline of impressionism, the birth of the avant-garde, the publication in Madrid of the complete works of S. Freud, which proclaimed, in particular, that the unconscious could be put at the service of poets and artists; the craze for surrealism, which L. Aragon proclaimed as the manifestation of a new rebellious spirit.

This was the time when many educators around the world began the movement for the “New School”, “New Education”, which could correspond to the era of large-scale industrialization, requiring a person capable of independently navigating the conditions of the turbulent scientific and technological revolution. That is why there was so much attention to the development of research methods in teaching, aimed at extracting knowledge from practice, from personal experience child (J. Dewey). In Germany, Austria, Belgium, a comprehensive education system was developed (A. Ferrier, O. Decroli), in America a general Classwork students was replaced by giving them freedom both in choosing activities and in using their study time. The school program consisted of a series of experiences interconnected in such a way that the information acquired from one experience served to develop and generalize a whole stream of other experiences. However, their topics were too utilitarian, private, and of little educational significance.

It was a time of revolution in Russia, a time of hope, change, renewal, a time of the formation of a new man; the time, as many thought, of building a new world; the time when people suddenly saw the world in a new way, what was previously invisible to them became visible. And although A. Camus claims that “the true essence of the 20th century is slavery” (61, p.436), in the twenties there was a sincere desire to get rid of, to throw far beyond the threshold of history everything that prevents a person from being happy and free, so that, finally, Thus, the principles proclaimed by the Great French Revolution triumphed: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Personality and its significance, more than ever, became the focus of public attention, and teachers, poets, doctors, and artists became concerned about the child’s personality; they were concerned about a society in which universities, religion, and the government divided the world among themselves. L. Aragon believed that it was they who separated “the individual from himself from early childhood, according to a long-established sinister plan.” (44, p. 120)

The French Group of New Education (GFEN), independent of the government and parties, was created in the 20s. The origins of the movement were such famous psychologists as Paul Langevin, Henri Vallon, Jean Piaget and others. P. Langevin A. Vallon was the president of GFEN for a long time. Last years GFEN was headed by Henri Bassis, a famous French teacher, poet and playwright, public figure during the Second World War - a participant in the Resistance movement.

Henri Bassis, together with his wife Odette Bassis, worked for several years in the Republic of Chad, applying the principles of the new educational philosophy. GFEN pedagogy is used in Portugal, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Chile, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and now in Russia.

In its manifesto, the French Group of New Education stated that “the goal of education is the education of a free and critically thinking individual and a conscious rejection of what is called fatality. The goal is mental liberation from dogma and the establishment of correspondence between what is said and done. The “New Education” movement advocates the intellectual emancipation of everyone as a condition for the emancipation of all.” (88, p.9)

One can notice some similarity in spirit with the manifesto with which S. Dali spoke at one time (CC, p. 230). Just like artists, GFEN does not outright reject the educators who came before them. They claim that their basis, the basis of their philosophy are “the thoughts of brilliant predecessors, representatives of humanity: Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Jacotot, Montessori, Decroll, Makarenko, Korczak, Baklet, Fresnay, Langevin, Piaget, Neil, Battelheim. All those for whom changing methods of education and teaching is the most important task of civilization.” (88, p. 13) GFEN, like the artists, began by denying the usual and seemingly unshakable attributes of the educational process itself; allowed the student to listen not to the teacher, but to his classmate, allowed to make mistakes, sing out of tune, not be afraid to write badly, put forward the most, at first glance, reckless hypotheses, argue and defend them, abandon them and put forward new ones. They put forward the thesis that “knowledge is creation and search in confrontation with previously acquired knowledge, with a critical assessment of what may have long been accepted by everyone.”

Pedagogical meaning of the concept “workshop”

Give chapter objectives comparative analysis lesson and workshop as a form of education, reflecting the features of two different philosophies of education. The material for analysis is the observations made, the expert assessment of students, theoretical work on technology, and the judgments of masters.

Colleagues from GFEN do not give of great importance constructions of the definition of “workshop”. They put the same meaning into the words “Workshop” and “Demarche”, although they give preference to the word “demarche”, showing that their classes are structured differently than the lesson, on different principles, sometimes directly opposite: blind submission - freedom, “absorption” of ready-made knowledge - independently constructed knowledge, pedagogy of prohibitions - pedagogy of choice, technocratic paradigm - humanistic paradigm. “The workshop...,” writes I.A. Mukhina, “is a form of education for children and adults that creates conditions for each participant to ascend to new knowledge and new experience through independent or collective discovery” (88, p. 302).

“The workshop,” says Zh.O. Andreeva, “is a form of organizing a multidimensional, multi-level dialogue that creates a single emotional and semantic field, which can subsequently determine the direction of further movement, the structure of future knowledge, or just create a motive” (88, p. 117) . The non-standard form of organizing the educational process, which creates a creative atmosphere and psychological comfort in the workshop, notes G.V. Stepanova (88, p. 169). Belova N.I. writes about the workshop as a technological, reflective form of personal-active organization of the educational process (89, p. 28). “For us, the workshop is a technology that requires the teacher to move to a position of partnership with students, non-violence, non-judgment... and the priority of the process over the result; this technology is aimed at “immersing” workshop participants in the process of search, cognition and self-knowledge” - M.T.Ermolaeva and Zh.O.Andreeva stand on this position, which does not contradict previous attempts to reveal the meaning of the workshop (48, p. 13). T.K. Selevko also writes about the workshop as an educational technology: “The workshop, as a local technology, covers a larger or smaller part of the academic discipline. It consists of a number of tasks that direct the children’s work in the right direction, but within each task the students are absolutely free” (100, p. 162). T.K. Selevko gives classification characteristics of workshop technology:

All of the above attempts to define the “workshop” complement each other, revealing its characteristics, defined by the philosophical and pedagogical position of GFEN, which was discussed in Chapter 1. As for the characteristics of the workshop as a technology given by T.K.Selevko, then basically it can be accept. Indeed, according to the concept of assimilation, it is associative-reflexive, since the educational process, development personal qualities considers a person as a process of formation in his consciousness of various associations - simple and complex, and at the same time, we can say that it is internalizing, that external actions with external objects are transformed into mental ones - they are internalized, going through the stages of socialization, reflection, undergoing generalization, reduction , becoming ready for further internal development.

It was noted above that the GFEN system of philosophical and pedagogical views recognizes a person as a value, recognizes his individuality, his right to freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of all abilities, therefore, according to the main factor of mental development, the technology of workshops, in which the result of development is determined mainly , by the person himself, his previous sensory experience, psychological processes of self-improvement, belong to psychogenic + sociogenic technologies. One can agree with T.K.Selevko that, in terms of orientation towards personal structures, the technology of workshops places an emphasis on the formation of methods of mental action (MSA) and on the formation of self-governing personality mechanisms (SUM), but at the same time, priority is given to the development of creative abilities, around this the whole action of the workshop unfolds. However, it is difficult to accept T.K.Selevko’s statement that the type of management is “small group system” + “tutor”. The meaning the author puts into the word tutor “(cyclical, directed, manual) - individual training” (100, p. 28) does not correspond to the philosophy of “New Education”. Management at the workshop is much more subtle, it combines individual, pair, group work with internal and external reflection, with socialization.

In terms of approach to the child, the workshop technology is more a technology of free education than free upbringing.

According to the prevailing method, it is rather dialogical, and then problem-search.

It is impossible to agree that “for the category of students, the technology of workshops is the technology of advanced education,” because the very philosophy of “New Education” is against fatality, against the division of children into different classes according to abilities, according to mental development. The workshop as a way of working both in public schools and in compensatory education classes, with difficult and gifted children, has repeatedly shown itself to be effective in Russia, France, Belgium, Denmark, and many other countries of the world. developing, creative, promoting the awakening of one’s “I”, faith in oneself, in people, a dialogical teaching method that affirms the teacher’s faith in his student.

Structure of polycentric technology

The structure we have chosen consists of eight main blocks that organize the corresponding stages of training:

familiarization with educational material, manifestation of personal cognitive goals, stimulation of the learning motive (stage of selection of basic concepts);

building associative series, activating personal experience, working with images, words, building one’s knowledge (workshop stage);

awareness of the truth of the knowledge built up in the workshop, comparison of conclusions, patterns, definitions, concepts in dialogue with classmates, making adjustments (self-diagnosis stage);

practicing special educational skills (the “living word” stage);

working with a textbook and other educational and scientific literature (theoretical enrichment stage);

internal and external quality control, depth of awareness of what has been learned, testing the ability to apply built-up knowledge in standard and creative situations (stage of internal and external reflection and control, test);

awareness of one’s intellectual growth and abilities discovered during the learning process (workshop “I” stage).

Each stage puts the student in an active position, in a position of choice, search, in the position of a researcher, involves him in the study of ideas, concepts, in the independent process of building himself, his knowledge, his relationships with classmates, with the world. At all stages, children with different levels of knowledge, with different interests, inclinations, and different positions in life are included in active activities. Following the principles of “New Education” will allow the master to organize the child’s actions at each structural stage of technology in such a way that many problems characteristic of traditional education will find their solution, such as: the discrepancy between the goals and meanings of the teacher and the student; the discrepancy between the logic of the teacher and the student, the student now builds his own understanding, his own process of cognition based on his logic, the teacher is only his assistant, therefore his logic does not contradict the logic of the student; misunderstanding of the teacher’s words, since now the students in the dialogue are turned towards each other, speak in a language they understand, the teacher’s word sounds only at the moment when it cannot destroy the student’s thought, when it is necessary, it will be heard by the child; the struggle for initiative in the classroom, since the initiative is transferred to the student from the very first minutes of the lesson.

The dialogical nature of all techniques, methods, methods used in teaching is aimed at the child’s affirmation of individuality and recognition, acceptance of the individuality of another; recognition of the equal importance of your classmate, while simultaneously recognizing individual differences; on developing openness towards another person; to understand oneself, and therefore to understand another person, to recognize and respect the beliefs and actions of others.

In the flowchart (Fig. $), which represents the structure of the technology, there are three conditional blocks that give the master the right to decide whether it is worth moving to the next stage or whether it is necessary to repeat the work determined by the previous blocks. A master, and only a master, relying on his professional intuition, can determine the required number of study hours, within the framework established by the school curriculum, which should be allocated to a particular block. Not a single link can be removed from the designated chain of systemic actions, as this may lead to failure at the next stage, and the goal of the entire pedagogical process determined by this technology may not be achieved.

The first stage is the presentation stage new topic, the stage of discussing and highlighting the basic concepts that all students need to master, without which it is impossible to build the meaning of the entire topic. Then the master builds a workshop. The workshop will allow each student to encounter new knowledge, will allow them to reveal the original meaning of basic concepts, compare it with the meanings that classmates have identified for themselves and identify the main patterns, basic connections, and structure of what is being studied. But it should be noted that each student has his own new knowledge born at the workshop. It is still incomplete, imperfect, not deep, it is just some kind of “blank” that requires further processing in the following stages. At the next stage, at the diagnostic stage, everyone will be given the opportunity to realize the constructed knowledge. If an understanding of the essence of the basic concepts and basic patterns has been built, then the master moves on to the next stage, the main stage of technology, the stage of the “living word”. On it, every student must process his knowledge, born in the workshop, give it a more perfect form and send it for storage in long-term memory.

Where are our roots? Who am I? Everyone asks themselves this question. In the very recent (Soviet) past, parents and relatives, as a rule, did not tell their children anything, but the stones spoke...

In the spring of 1991, having returned to my hometown after a fifty-year break, my cousin Victor, who accompanied me, and I came to the Pokrovskoye cemetery to bow to the graves of our ancestors. The picture that appeared before my eyes left me in confusion. The ruins of family crypts and tombstones, thickets of wild bushes, weeds, and the sun barely breaking through the treetops - all this created the impression of sad desolation and abandonment.

Victor led me along the path to the right of the road leading to a large mass grave from the First World War, telling me along the way: “Aunt Tina is buried here somewhere, but I can’t find her grave...”. Aunt Tina is Clementina Ioganovna Tsvetikova, my paternal grandmother’s sister. Their mother (my great-grandmother) was born Okuneva (the grave was later found).

After walking several dozen steps, we read the inscription on the half-broken gravestone: “Maria Arsenyevna Sidkevich, born. Okuneva, 1847-1925." This is my great-grandmother. Victor remembers well that her cousin, Nikolai Okunev, together with his mother, often visited his grandmother’s house on Blaumana Street, No. 1, where he lived. Father Nikolai served as a deacon in the Alexander Nevsky Church. The Okunevs were well known in Riga. This mainly merchant family settled in Riga in the 18th century. The Okunevs were written about more than once in Riga pre-war newspapers, while working on which Svetlana Aleksandrovna Vidyakina discovered a number of interesting data. In particular, Nikolai Arsenievich Okunev was one of the donors for the construction of the Intercession Church. On the large family grave, among the destroyed crosses and tombstones, we were able to read interesting inscriptions. I quote one of them verbatim: “Here is buried the body of the servant of God Mikhail Mikhailovich Okunev, who died on February 18, 1843, at the age of 42, and his son Pavel Mikhailovich Okunev, who died on May 9, 1861, at the age of 33. year old and the servant of God Alexandra Lukinishna Okuneva, who died on May 14, 1862, at the age of 63.” The remaining inscriptions have yet to be deciphered, since the cross and the tombstone lie face down. However, closer to the path, on another grave, with a carved cast-iron fence and a preserved tombstone, we read: “Riga merchant Nikolai Arsenievich Okunev b. 1836, deceased 9 Sep. 1910 and his wife Ekaterina Ivanovna, deceased. at 28 years of age.” On the fragment of the cross there is an inscription: “Eternal departure.” On the other side of the path: “Maria Arsenyevna Sidkevich, born. Okuneva, 1847-1925." Below: “Clementina Ivanovna Tsvetikova, 1872-1959” (daughter of Maria Arsenyevna - T.N.)

The grave is located in sector G, No. 19.

We haven’t deciphered anything else yet, but the family tree continues - the Sidkeviches, Nikiforovs, Tsvetikovas.

But I really want to ask the question: does the extract from the book of the historian M.I. Semevsky “The Secret Service of Peter I” (Minsk, “Belarus”, p. 112), which tells that “Praskovya (the wife of the half-brother of Peter I)” have anything to do with the above? - Joanna) often sent people close to her to her daughter Ekaterina when she was visiting Anna in Mitava (Jelgava... Such a messenger, as can be seen from the letters... was often Okunev: “Okuneva, Katyushka, hold on, there will be a need what to order, you sent it to me...”

Classification parameters of technology By level of application: general pedagogical. On a philosophical basis: dialectical. According to the main development factor: sociogenic. According to the concept of assimilation: associative-reflex. By orientation to personal structures: ZUN + COURT. By the nature of the content: educational, secular, general education, technocratic, political technology. By type of management: modern traditional training. According to organizational forms: class-lesson. According to the approach to the child: technology of cooperation. According to the predominant method: explanatory-illustrative + search. In the direction of modernization: activation. By category of trainees: mass.

Conceptual provisions Driving force The educational process is a contradiction between the tasks that you set for students and their knowledge and skills. The principle of interest. Novelty, new material as a kind of stimulus that causes mismatch, including mechanisms of orientation and cognitive activity. Every lesson should have intrigue and zest.

A good lesson is a lesson of questions and doubts, insights and discoveries. Its conditions: - theoretical material must be given at a high level, and asked according to ability; - the principle of connection between theory and practice; - principle of accessibility; - the principle of consciousness; - focus not on memorization, but on meaning; - the principle of the strength of knowledge acquisition; - thinking should dominate memory, educational information is distributed into large blocks, material is given in large doses; - the principle of clarity (improving the ability to observe); - principle of optimization (highlighting the main thing, accounting for time).

Features of the methodology The main features of the technology of a highly productive, effective lesson: - creation and maintenance high level cognitive interest and independent mental activity of students; - economical and expedient use of lesson time; - application of a diverse arsenal of teaching methods and tools; - formation and training of methods of mental action of students (SUD); - high positive level of interpersonal relationships between teacher and students; - the volume and strength of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired by schoolchildren in the lesson (ZUN).

Ways to organize the beginning of a lesson: A task is proposed that can be solved only on the basis of the children’s life experience and their ingenuity, so that everyone is equal. The task is given to train memory, observation, and search for patterns based on material that has been well mastered by schoolchildren. In mathematics lessons, equations and answers to them are written on the board, among which there are both true and false. It is suggested that you check them out. The solution to an example or problem with traditional, most common errors is written on the board. A traditional problem with a conventional solution is given. It is proposed to find a shorter, more rational one. A drawing for a complex problem is given on the board, and the condition of the problem is created using the “brainstorming” method, and its solution is searched for.

The main tasks of the teacher: to cultivate the student’s faith in his own abilities, to teach him to enjoy communication with the teacher and friends, to cultivate attention and the desire for independent activity in schoolchildren. Use techniques to effectively apply educational material to develop self-education skills among schoolchildren. Be sensitive to the student’s thoughts and improvise. Make the lesson emotionally vivid. Use all the different modern methods lesson. Create psychological comfort for the class. Rely on independent work of students.

Lesson system: - lessons where students learn to recall material; - a lesson in finding rational solutions; - a lesson in checking results by comparing them with data; - lesson of one task; - lesson independent work, requiring creative approach; - a lesson of independent work on material that was not explained; - a lesson in which they return to previously studied material and examine knowledge from a new angle; - lesson - “benefit performance”; - laboratory works on geometric material of juniors; - lesson - oral test; - test lesson.

Non-traditional lesson technologies include: - integrated lessons based on interdisciplinary connections; - lessons in the form of competitions and games; - lessons based on forms, genres and methods of work known in social practice; - lessons based on non-traditional organization of educational material; - lessons with imitation of public forms of communication; - lessons using fantasy; - lessons based on imitation of the activities of institutions and organizations; - lessons imitating social and cultural events; - transferring traditional forms of extracurricular activities into the lesson.

O Lesson! - you are sun!

Sh. Amonashvili

Okunev Anatoly Arsenievich(R. …) - mathematic teacher high school No. 526, St. Petersburg, Honored Teacher of the RSFSR, laureate of the Prize named after. N.K. Krupskaya.

Classification parameters of technology

Level and nature of application: general pedagogical.

Philosophical basis: dialectical.

Methodological approach: differentiated, complex, activity-based.

Leading development factors: sociogenic.

Scientific concept gaining experience: associative-reflex.

Focus on personal spheres and structures: ZUN + COURT.

Nature of content: educational, secular, general education, technocratic, polytechnology.

Type of social and pedagogical activity: teaching, educational, management.

Type of management of the educational process: modern traditional education.

Predominant methods: explanatory and illustrative + search.

Organizational forms: class lesson.

Predominant means: verbal + visual + practical.

Approach to the child and the nature of educational interactions: technology of cooperation.

Modernization direction: activation.

Target orientations

¶ Mastering standard knowledge and mathematical systems.

¶ Creating and maintaining a high level of cognitive interest and independent mental activity of students.

¶ Economical and efficient use of lesson time.

¶ Variety of teaching methods and means.

¶ Formation and training of methods of mental activity of students.

¶ Formation and development of self-governing personality mechanisms that promote learning.

¶ High positive level of interpersonal relationships between teacher and students.

¶ Development of capable children.

Conceptual provisions

v Driving force The educational process is a contradiction between the tasks that you set for students and their knowledge and skills.

v Principle of interest . Novelty, new material as a kind of stimulus that causes mismatch, including the mechanisms of orientation and cognitive activity. Every lesson should have intrigue and zest.

v Good lesson is a lesson in questions and doubts, insights and discoveries. Its conditions:

– theoretical material should be given at a high level, and asked according to ability;

– the principle of connecting theory with practice: learning to apply knowledge in unusual situations;

– the principle of accessibility: the student must act to the limit of his capabilities; The teacher’s talent is to guess these opportunities and correctly determine the degree of difficulty;

– the principle of consciousness: the child must know what he is going through (at the beginning of studying the topic, they leaf through the textbook, establish why and what they will study);

– the focus is not on memorization, but on meaning, the task is at the center of the content;

– the principle of the strength of knowledge acquisition: the basics of memorization are given;

– thinking should dominate memory, educational information is distributed across large blocks , the material is given in large doses;

– the principle of clarity (improving the ability to observe);

– optimization principle (highlighting the main thing, taking time into account).

Features of the technique

The main features of the technology of a high-performance, effective lesson:

– creating and maintaining a high level of cognitive interest and independent mental activity of students;

– economical and expedient use of lesson time;

– use of a diverse arsenal of teaching methods and tools;

– formation and training of methods of mental action of students (SUD);

– contribution to the formation and development of the student’s personal qualities, and first of all, the self-governing mechanisms of the individual that promote learning (SLM);

– high positive level of interpersonal relationships between teacher and students;

– the volume and strength of knowledge, skills and abilities acquired by schoolchildren in the lesson (KUN).

Technology system modern lesson has enormous variability. Known recommendations based on the example of only one small structural part vary in A.A. technology. Okuneva like this:

Ways to organize the beginning of a lesson(task: to gain attention; to join in the lesson; to provide positive motivation):

A task is proposed that can be solved only on the basis of the children’s life experience and their ingenuity, so that everyone is equal.

The task is given to train memory, observation, and search for patterns based on material that has been well mastered by schoolchildren.

Equations and answers to them are written on the board, some of which are true and some are false.

It is suggested that you check them out.

The solution to an example or problem with traditional, most common errors is written on the board.

A traditional problem with a conventional solution is given. It is proposed to find a shorter, more rational one.

A drawing for a complex problem is given on the board and a solution is searched for using the brainstorming method.

The lesson begins with reading the paragraph phrase by phrase (studied independently) - discussing its meaning, answering questions, proving the depth of study of the topic.

Questions are written on the board, the answers to which will help you understand the key points of the proof of the most difficult theorem in order to remember it better.

The guys pretend to be some geometric figure and carry out research work according to plan.

Various ways to solve the problem are discussed.

Homework was given - to compose a fairy tale, make a crossword puzzle. The most successful ones are presented.

A mathematical problem is considered that has not yet been discussed in class. Students outline a plan to find a solution.

Drawings for household tasks are made on the board. Based on the finished drawings, their solutions are discussed.

The lesson begins with the “soloists” - “defending” the solution to difficult homework problems.

t Requirements for a teacher

The main task of the teacher - cultivate faith student in his own strength, teach enjoy communication with the teacher, comrades, to cultivate attention, the desire for independent activity schoolchildren.

Use techniques that allow you to effectively apply educational material in order to develop in schoolchildren self-education skills .

Be sensitive to the student’s thoughts and improvise.

Make the lesson emotionally vivid.

Use all the different modern teaching methods.

Create psychological comfort for the class.

Rely on independent work of students.

t Lesson system (according to A.A. Okunev’s classification):

lessons where students study remember material (learn to keep the material in memory);

a lesson in finding rational solutions;

a lesson in checking results by comparing them with data;

single task lesson (enjoyment of what they think);

independent work lesson requiring a creative approach;

independent work lesson on material that was not explained;

a lesson in which they return to previously studied material and examine knowledge from a new angle;

lesson – “benefit performance”;

laboratory work on junior geometric material;

lesson - oral test;

test lesson (thematic and final).

Forerunners, varieties, followers

& Lesson technologies based on the improvement of classical forms of lesson teaching, non-standard structures and methods, have been developed by many subject teachers: L.V. Makhova (chemistry), T.I. Goncharova (history), V.A. Gerbutov (physics), etc.

1. Goncharova T. I. History lessons are life lessons. - M., 1986.

2. Makhova L.V. Experience, search, thoughts... - M., 1989

3. Nyankovsky M.A. Studying "Quiet Don". - Yaroslavl, 1996.

4. Okunev A.A. Thanks for the lesson, kids! - M.: Education, 1988.

5. Okunev A.A. Change the focus // Public education. - 1991. - No. 1, 3, 5.

6. Okunev A.A. We have no right to get tired // Public education. - 1988. - No. 10.

7. Selevko G.K. Test aspect analysis of the lesson. - M.: RIPCRO, 1996.

To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search in several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search taking into account morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " # " before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Relevance of expressions

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^ " at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values is a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values ​​in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.