International Journal of Pedagogics
130
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue02 2025
PAGE NO.
130-132
10.37547/ijp/Volume05Issue02-33
The practical significance of integrating prose works in
developing students’ literary
-aesthetic competencies
Jamila Avezbayeva
Assistant Teacher at the Department of Uzbek Language and Literature, Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 December 2024;
Accepted:
14 January 2025;
Published:
16 February 2025
Abstract:
This article discusses the practical importance of teaching prose works in an integrated manner to
develop students’ literary
-aesthetic competencies in general secondary schools. It examines how an
interdisciplinary approach to teaching literature can nurture spiritually mature and aesthetically sensitive
individuals, thereby contributing to holistic education.
Keywords:
Conceptual thinking, types of perception, individual differences, experimental teaching, conceptual
approach, educational integration, cognitive activity, literary-aesthetic education.
Introduction:
The knowledge and experience of
educated, enlightened individuals are vital for
internalizing the content of art and for sensing the
author’s ideas and the characters’ emotions. Scientific
(conceptual) and artistic (figurative) thinking are closely
interwoven with cognitive activity, influencing each
other
in
the
learning
process.
Establishing
interdisciplinary integration when teaching literature is
one of the most pressing issues in educational
methodology today. Just as all phenomena in the world
exist in harmony and interconnection, the education
system
—
which shapes our understanding of that
world
—
must integrate the teaching of all academic
subjects. Literary education is no exception.
Literature profoundly impacts the human psyche,
worldview, behavior, speech development, and one’s
role in the family and society. It is therefore necessary
to examine it extensively, including integrating literary
progress into the broader concept of artistic-aesthetic
education as a “constituent part.” The structure and
teaching methods of literature courses in general
secondary schools
—
specifically, how and why national
and world literature are taught and how texts are
selected
—
determine the substance of the lessons. The
repeated emphasis on the goal of literary education
underscores the objective of nurturing a morally
developed, aesthetically sensitive individual. In this
regard, the point is not merely to “educate the reader”
but also to embrace the spiritual richness at the heart
of literary works and to use that richness to guide
students toward deeper engagement.
Although it is widely recognized that literature is a form
of “human studies,” the term implies not only the
understanding of the world and humankind but also
the redirection of one’s consciousness toward a more
progressive outlook
—shaping one’s attitude toward
the surrounding world and the discovery of self. As the
scholar D. Quronov states: “Because creative writing is
essentially a cognitive process, artistic literature is also
a phenomenon linked to consciousness. Yet, it realizes
knowledge through an approach unique to art
—
literature expresses itself through artistic images.
Therefore, literature is a dual phenomenon, equally
connected to
art and social consciousness.” [1; 33
-b].
METHODOLOGY
In many developed countries, the objectives of
teaching literature in schools emerge through a
specialized study of how art impacts the younger
generation. This involves focusing on students’
aesthetic education and the active, in-depth perception
of literary texts; moral and social development; mental
“hygiene”; introduction to poetic language; the
cultivation of logical thinking; and even the practical
integration of manual labor, physical education, and
meeting social needs. In countries such as the United
States, the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey, the
International Journal of Pedagogics
131
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
primary goal of a literature curriculum is to help
students master the native language in all its functions
and styles, gain active communication skills, and
understand the specific characteristics of artistic
expression conveyed through language. Inevitably, this
leads to a focus on the interrelationship between
education, instruction, and personal development in
the study of literature. One can also illustrate this by
examining how literature is taught in conjunction with
other academic subjects.
The content of literary education must include all
elements that can be explored through specific
instructional methods, including activities that
promote creative engagement. However, today’s
rapidly changing environment, with its intensified
individual differences, varied modes of perception, and
natural aptitudes, requires more precise and well-
founded solutions. As early as the late 19th century,
French schools implemented a methodological system
known as “explication de texte” (textual commentary),
aimed at achieving this fundamental goal of literary
education. A similar approach can be found in the
German gymnasium programs, where the study of
literature centers on close textual work, primarily to
develop students’ speech and writing skills.
RESULTS
Some contemporary methodologists and literary
scholars recommend enhancing national education by
drawing on foreign practices related to analyzing and
interpreting literary texts. They focus on complex,
synthetic literary-theoretical concepts such as the
figure of the author, authorial perspective, reader
response, and active reading [2; 160-b]. In determining
how to introduce students to a conscious and aesthetic
appreciation of literature, research in developmental
and personality psychology is particularly relevant.
Children’s worldview starts to form rapidly and deeply
in early adolescence; this is when they develop a
system of ethical beliefs, refine their literary tastes, and
discover specific interests in art and science. Their
general and specialized abilities grow intensively, as
does their capacity for critical thinking about
themselves and their surroundings, gradually becoming
responsible and active citizens.
When developing literary-aesthetic competencies,
educators must account for the works (both classroom
and independent reading) that students will study
according to the curriculum. These may include
classical, modern, lyric, philosophical prose, civic
poetry, love poetry, as well as various genres of classic
and contemporary drama. The depiction of complex
personal experiences, relative fluidity in time and
space, and unique portrayals of reality
—
all rich in
psychological depth and stylistic forms
—
serve as
essential material for elevating young readers’ literary
awareness.
In both oral and written artistic expression, words not
only refer to objects and ideas but also establish broad
contextual relationships that convey extensive artistic
generalizations. Therefore, students can truly perceive
and interpret an artistic image only if they possess
sufficient language proficiency and the ability to
abstract and generalize at a high level. Particularly
during early adolescence
—
when perception is most
sensitive
—
a scientifically grounded approach and
carefully structured learning phases are essential. In
the past decade, the teaching of literature in secondary
schools has become a recurring topic in newspapers,
journals, television, and radio programs. Debates range
from questions about direct engagement with texts
and curriculum requirements to the very need for
literary education. Literary scholar Z. Mirzayeva
explains why Uzbek literature education struggles to
align with international standards:
1. Lack of a theoretical foundation
for specific
conceptual approaches aimed at teaching or studying
literary works;
2. Superficial implementation of integration
between
subjects, with many research findings in methodology
not being systematically applied in practice, leading to
a disconnect between literary education and
pragmatism;
3. Limited scope of current studies
, which focus only
on internal possibilities within literary education,
neglecting the advanced pedagogical practices and
theoretical insights from developed foreign countries.
In some cases, outdated teaching methods remain
entrenched, with no progress toward more effective
strategies [3; 26-34-b].
One might add that promising methods for interpreting
literary texts, currently employed by a handful of
expert teachers, have yet to be widely adopted. Many
students view literature mainly as a path to entering
prestigious universities or, nowadays, as a source of
potential financial reward. In reality, however, the core
goal is to help students refine their emotional lives
through reading, gain moral and aesthetic satisfaction
from texts, draw lessons from depicted events, and
thereby prepare themselves for life.
CONCLUSION
In a presentation on the “Leading Princi
ples of Modern
Philological Education,” the noted literary scholar
Professor Q. Yo‘ldoshev identifies root issues in
teaching. He concludes:
“Students should not be treated merely as objects who
International Journal of Pedagogics
132
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
absorb a certain amount of ‘truths’ in different
subjects; rather, they must be guided to become
individuals capable of evaluating any event or situation
in society with a healthy, independent perspective. In
selecting literature for schools, the importance is not
the literary status or popularity of a particular author
or work but the extent to which it can foster the moral
qualities that should be cultivated in the student’s
spiritual development.” [4; 12
-13-b].
Indeed, in every era, acquiring systematic knowledge
about the development and uniqueness of literature as
an art form has been a critical issue. There is growing
advocacy for building stronger skills in reading,
analyzing, and evaluating literary texts
—
encouraging
empathy toward authors and their characters as a
result of deeper reading, rather than merely accepting
first impressions. According to methodologists,
analyzing a literary work immediately after students’
initial, often unprepared reading primarily serves to
correct misunderstandings and fill in the gaps in
comprehension. Yet achieving true independence of
thought in students is impossible without building on
the experiences of past generations and cultivating the
ability to evaluate both the literary and social
dimensions of a work. Such independence develops
only in harmony with the growth of emotional and
psychological maturity. As the philosopher Al-Farabi
noted: “A child possesses a heart capable of great
potential, endowed with the faculties of perception
through feeling and intellect. Through these faculties,
one comes to understand physical
entities.” [5; 79
-b].
Methodologist R. Keldiyorov echoes these sentiments,
urging caution and awareness of students’ inner
emotional world: “Be careful—there is a heart there.”
[6; 52-b].
As students’ language skills grow, their ability to
perceive and understand artistic speech is honed
through reading and studying works of literature.
Artistic thinking prioritizes the personal, individual
character of psychological processes (figurative
generalization
and
specification),
heightened
emotional coloring, and a drive to uncover truth.
Figurative generalization and concrete realization are
specific cognitive processes involving a kind of “self
-
transference”: the process of understanding a literary
work becomes, in part, a process of self-discovery.
REFERENCES
Quronov D. Adabiyot nazariyasi asoslari [Foundations
of Literary Theory]. Tashkent: Akademnashr, 2018,
p.33.
Izer V. Retseptivnaya estetika. Germenevtika i
perevodimost. Akademicheskiye tetrady, Issue 6.
Moscow:
Nezavisimaya
akademiya
estetiki
i
svobo
dnykh iskusstv, 1999; Jalilov K. “Yangi davr
adabiyot darsligi eskicha yondashuv va qarashlardan
xoli bo‘lishi lozim” [The New Era Literature Textbook
Must Be Free from Old Approaches and Views].
Ma’rifat,
Tashkent,
27
June
2018.
http://marifat.uz/marifat/ruknlar/umumii-urta-
talim/1402.htm; Mirzayeva Z., Jalilov K. Adabiyot
o‘qitish metodikasi: an’anaviylikdan zamonaviylikka
[Methods of Teaching Literature: From Tradition to
Modernity]. Tashkent: Institute of Uzbek Language and
Literature, Folklore Studies, 2020, p.160.
Qosimov A.G‘. “Raqamli adabiyotda retseptiv estetika”
[Reception
Aesthetics
in
Digital
Literature].
O‘zbekistonda xorijiy tillar [Foreign Languages in
Uzbekistan], No.2(37), 2021, pp.26
–
34.
Yo‘ldosh Q. “Zamonaviy filologik ta’limning ye
takchi
tamoyillari” [Leading Principles of Modern Philological
Education], in Proceedings of the Republican Scientific-
Practical Conference ‘Global Ta’lim va Milliy Metodika
Taraqqiyoti’
[Global
Education
and
National
Methodology Development]. Tashkent: Tashkent State
University of Uzbek Language and Literature, 2020,
pp.5
–7; Yo‘ldosh Q. “Global dunyoda adabiy ta’lim
vazifasi” [The Task of Literary Education in a Global
World]. Til va adabiyot ta’limi [Language and Literature
Education], No.1, 2023, pp.3
–
5.
Xayrullayev F. Forobiy ruhiy protsesslar va taʼlim
-
tarbiya to‘g‘risida [Al−Farabi on Psychological
Processes and Education]. Tashkent: O‘qituvchi, 1967,
p.79.
Keldiyorov R. Adabiyot darslari samaradorligini
oshirishning ilmiy-
metodik asoslari (O‘qit
uvchi kasbiy-
maʼnaviy
fazilatlari
asosida)
[Scientific
and
Methodological Bases for Increasing the Effectiveness
of Literature Lessons (Based on the Professional and
Moral Qualities of the Teacher)]. Candidate of
Pedagogical Sciences Dissertation, Tashkent, 2001,
p.52.
