THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
68
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
PUBLISHED DATE: - 12-06-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume06Issue06-13
PAGE NO.: - 68-71
TEACHING FUTURE MATHEMATICS
TEACHERS BASED ON A CONTEXTUAL
APPROACH
Koshnazarov Rasul Atabekovich
Senior teacher of Tashkent State Pedagogical University, Uzbekistan
INTRODUCTION
There are various methodological approaches to
explaining the essence of learning. Of the foreign
concepts, the most common ones that reveal the
mechanisms of teaching are behavioristic and
pragmatic theories. Behavioral theory has become
widespread in pedagogical practice in the USA and
many European countries. Its adherents consider
all phenomena of mental life as a set of acts of
behavior. They identify the psyche of man and
animals, reducing all complex life activity to the
formula “stimulus
-
response”.
From their point of view, the learning process is
the art of controlling stimuli in order to cause or
prevent certain reactions, and the learning process
is a set of reactions to stimuli and stimulating
situations. The development of consciousness is
identified with the f
ormation of students’
reactions, i.e. They view learning as the
development of the ability to react in a certain way
to certain situations, and not as the development of
the ability to act or think. Thus, a person’s
conscious activity in the learning process is
explained not by mental, but by physiological
processes.
Conscious actions of students are replaced by
purely reflexive ones. Behaviorists see the
difference between humans and highly organized
animals in the fact that they can be influenced by
secondary, verbal stimuli, to which responses also
occur. Unlike behaviorists, pragmatists reduce
learning only to expanding the student’s personal
experience in order for him to adapt as best as
possible to the existing social system. Education
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
69
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
can only contribute to the manifestation of the
capabilities inherent in a person from birth.
Therefore, his goal is to teach the child to live. And
this means adapting to the environment, satisfying
personal interests and needs without focusing on
the social environment, based on subjectively
understood benefits.
In accordance with these views, pragmatists argue
that learning is a purely individual process. They
do not consider it necessary to develop systematic
knowledge, skills and abilities, and therefore deny
the scientific basis of curricula and programs.
Pragmatists belittle the importance of the teacher
in the learning process, assigning him the role of an
assistant and consultant. For them, the main
mechanism and, accordingly, the method of
acquiring knowledge, skills and abilities is
“learning through doing,” i.e. performing practical
tasks and exercises. In addition to behaviorism and
pragmatism, there are other theories of learning.
Some of them reject both the physiological and
psychological foundations of the educational
process, reducing it only to the reactions occurring
in the student’s soul. They either do not explain the
mechanism for acquiring knowledge, skills and
abilities, or reduce it to intuition, insight,
discretion, etc. Existentialism and neo-Thomism
have this orientation, which belittle the role of
learning and subordinate intellectual development
to the education of feelings.
The explanation for this position comes from the
assertion that only individual facts can be known,
but without their awareness, without taking into
account the interconnection of patterns. There are
other approaches to explaining the learning
mechanism. Currently, most scientists share the
point of view that the theoretical and
methodological basis of teaching is the
materialistic theory of knowledge (epistemology),
according to which the real world is objective and
exists outside of human consciousness, it is
knowable. Cognition is a reflection of reality in
consciousness, active mental and emotional
activity, the result of which is knowledge,
generalizations in the form of theories, laws,
scientific concepts. The dialectical path of
cognition of truth, objective reality goes from living
contemplation to abstract thinking and from there
to practice.
In the process of living contemplation, i.e. through
sensations, perception, active study of objective
reality, certain ideas arise about certain
phenomena and objects. These ideas provide the
basis for generalizations.
Abstract thinking makes it possible to establish the
general characteristics of cognizable phenomena,
to assimilate concepts, judgments, conclusions,
and to establish significant, necessary, stable
connections between phenomena, i.e. derive
certain laws and patterns. All these provisions of
epistemology are directly related to educational
knowledge. Teaching is always associated with
cognition. The task of teaching is to ensure that the
laws of nature, the development of society and
human mental processes become the property of
the consciousness of students. There are many
similarities between cognition and learning. The
student also learns about the world around him.
Teaching, therefore, can be considered as a variety,
a unique form of knowledge.
However, there are significant differences between
cognition and learning:
• knowledge is a socio
-historical category. Over
many centuries, scientists have discovered many
patterns in the development of nature, society and
human thinking. This means that scientists learn
new things in their original form, so they may be
incomplete. In the learning process, students
perceive the known as new, assimilate ideas,
concepts, and facts already accumulated by
science. They seem to rediscover known truths for
themselves, study simplified material that is
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
70
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
didactically adapted to the age-related educational
capabilities and characteristics of the students. In
addition, educational cognition necessarily
involves the direct or indirect influence of the
teacher, and the scientist often does without
interpersonal interaction;
• in the proce
ss of cognition, the path to discovery
often represents a long period (sometimes
centuries) of searches, experiments, scientific
reflection, trial and error, and testing in practice. In
the educational process, the path to assimilation of
knowledge is shorter, it is significantly facilitated
by the skill of the teacher;
• the process of cognition requires the perception
of material or spiritual objects, while practice is the
criterion of truth. It serves as a prerequisite for the
discovery of patterns. The logic of the cognition
process goes from living contemplation to
comprehension and practice. In teaching, a teacher
can change the links in the process of acquiring
knowledge, alternate or combine them with
practical skills.
Thus, there are both common features and
differences between cognition and the learning
process. The educational process develops
according to its inherent internal logic on the basis
of patterns occurring in the mental activity of
students. However, recently, works have appeared
in which teaching methodology is understood
differently. VC. Dyachenko proves that learning
and cognition are not only different, but also, in a
certain sense, opposite processes. Cognition is a
kind of reflection of objects and phenomena of the
objectively existing world, their properties,
features, essences.
Teaching is a joint activity between teacher and
student,
their
real,
primarily
physical,
communicative interaction through sounds and
signs, using language. If this physical, material
interaction does not exist, then learning cannot
occur. Learning is the practical activity of people, it
is an objective reality, and cognition is a reflection,
a secondary phenomenon. Unlike cognition, which
is a function of the brain, the internal mental
properties of a person, learning takes place in a
classroom, workshop, or factory. These processes
are as opposite as real things and real phenomena
are opposite to the concepts and ideas about them
in people’s heads. If the essence of learning and the
essence of cognition coincided, then both learning
and cognition would occur in consciousness.
But learning is a real, physical interaction between
people teaching and being taught, and it does not
happen in their minds. Therefore, the theory of
knowledge, no matter how thoroughly and
specifically it is presented in relation to teaching,
cannot serve as a methodological, scientific and
theoretical basis for teaching. It is necessary to
analyze the interaction between student and
teacher, carried out with the help of language,
sounds and signs, that is, to consider learning not
as a special case of cognition, but as a special case
of communication. Therefore, the essence of
learning is communication. This is the position of
V.K. Dyachenko [9]. This approach is not widely
accepted.
REFERENCES
1.
Azizkhojaeva N.N. Pedagogical technology and
pedagogical skills. - T.: Science, 2006.
2.
Andreev, V.I. Pedagogy [Text]: textbook. course
for creative self
–
development / V.I. Andreev. -
2nd ed.
–
Kazan: Center for Innovative
Technologies, 2000.
–
608 p.
3.
Babansky, Yu.K. Problems of increasing the
effectiveness of pedagogical research: didactic
aspect [Text] / Yu.K. Babansky.
–
M.: Pedagogy,
1982.
–
192 p.
4.
Belova, N.I. Workshop: the possibilities of
human self-development [Text] / N.I. Belova
//Developing learning: Materials of the
scientific method. Conf. February 18-19, 1998.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
71
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Questions of methodology and technology.
Issue 3.
–
St. Petersburg: "Madam", 1998.
–
pp.
40-42.
5.
Korotov V.M. Pedagogical technology of
humanistic education [Text]: / V.M. Korotov.
–
Solikamsk, SSPI, 1996.
–
78 p.
6.
Krayevsky, V.V. The content of education
–
forward to the past [Text] / V.V. Krayevsky.
–
M., 2001.
