Article

Ilyasov I.I., Kostrova A.V. (2017). Connection between types of learning by P.Ya. Galperin with kinds of thinking in school students. National Psychological Journal. 3, 62-75.

Abstract

In order to determine the correlational relations mentioned in the title here above, a number of experiments with school students have been carried out. They included knowledge instruction on the basis of Galperin’s types of learning on three school subjects (history, biology, geometry); checking the level of logical thinking by means of solving a number of tasks that include basic logical operations such as categorization, generalization, classification, deductive conclusions, finding of analogies and equalizing of variables; estimation of the development level of abilities for searching solutions of insight problems by the results of solving five such problems taken from the set of tasks used in researches on creative thinking; appraisal of the development level of creativity by using the subtest “sketches” in Guilford’s technique.

The sample included 132 school students of the 7th grades from Yekaterinburg schools, Russia. The obtained data were processed statistically using Pearson and Spearman coefficients. Concerning the correlations studied, the following results have been received.

The effectiveness of 1st type of learning is strongly connected with the development of logical thinking (r=0,54), is moderately connected with the ability to solve convergent problems (r=0,34) and is not connected with the ability to solve creative divergent tasks. The effectiveness of 2nd type of learning is connected with the level of logical operations development (r=0,29 for facts and r=0,57 for proofs) and is not connected with the ability to solve convergent and divergent problems. The effectiveness of the 3rd type of learning does not deal with solving convergent tasks, is hardly connected with flexibility (r=0,25) and ingenuity (r=0,21) of solving creative tasks, and even less the 2nd type of learning is connected with logical development when logically complex knowledge is assumed (r=0,48). The established ties give grounds to suggest that the use of the 1st type of learning should develop the abilities for solving insight problems and should not develop creativity in course of instruction, the 2nd type of learning has potential of logical operations development; the 3rd

Received: 08/02/2017
Accepted: 09/10/2017
Pages: 62-75
DOI: 10.11621/npj.2017.0308

PDF: Download

Keywords: Galperin P.Y.; types of teaching by P.Ya. Galperin; success of training; creative thinking; development of thinking;

Available Online 10.10.2017

Table 1. The number of subjects who solved the problem using "quick wit", and the number of points for the correct decision

№	Task		Number of subjects who solved the problem	Number of points for the correct decision
1	Four points and three lines		49	1
2	Fake coin		5	3
3	Equal matches		18	2
4	Cheese cutting		59	1
5	Making 4 triangles with 6 matches		6	3
6	River and boat		10	3
7	Bookworm		2	3
8	Creature born of a cow		21	2
9	Cards with numbers and letters	А	11	2
		Б	11	2
		В	9	2

Table 2. Z Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics for variables estimated in the study

	Logic	Convergent Tasks	Fluency	Ingenuity	Flexibility	Sophisticated Approach	Building Knowledge 1 from Messages	Building Knowledge 2 from Messages	Assignments for Using Deductive Approach
Z Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistics	0.8	2.5	1	2.2	1.1	1.2	1.4	0.4	0.8
Value	0.54	0	0.2	0	0.16	0.11	0.03	0.99	0.5

Table 3. Correlation of success in using knowledge within the 2nd and 3rd types of learning with developed logical thinking

		2nd type of learning, using readymade knowledge 2	3rd type of learning, deductive approach
Logic	Pearson's coefficient	,572**	,483**
	Value (2-sided)	,000	,000
	N	61	85

**Correlation is significant at the point of 0.01 (2-sided)

Table 4. Correlation of the success in using knowledge within the 1st and 2nd types of learning with developed logical thinking

		1st type of learning, using knowledge by searching	2nd type of learning, using readymade knowledge 1
Logic	Spearman’s coefficient	0,54**	,288**
	Value (2-sided)	0,01	,009
	N	80	80

**Correlation is significant at the point of 0.01 (2-sided)

Table 5. Correlation of the success in solving creative problems using "quick wit" with developed logical thinking

		Problem
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Logic	Spearman’s coefficient	,238**	,191*	,128	,274**	-,037	,323**	,050	,123	,236**
	Value (2-sided)	,008	,033	,156	,002	,685	,000	,580	,172	,008
	N	124	124	124	124	124	124	124	124	124

* Correlation is valuable at the point of 0.05 (2-sided)

** Correlation is valuable at the point of 0.01 (2-sided)

Table 6. Correlations of the success in using knowledge within the 1st, 2nd and 3rd types of learning with developed convergent thinking

		1st type of learning, using knowledge by searching	2nd type of learning, using readymade knowledge 1	2nd type of learning, using readymade knowledge 2	3rd type of learning, deductive approach
Convergent Thinking (Task 2, 3, 5, 7, 8)	Spearman’s coefficient	0,34**	,233*	,126	,157
	Value (2-sided)	0,01	,033	,324	0,12
	N	97	84	63	90

* Correlation is valuable at the point of 0.05 (2-sided)

** Correlation is valuable at the point of 0.01 (2-sided)

Table 7. Correlations of the success in using knowledge within the 2nd and 3rd types of learning with developed creative potential

		2nd type of learning, using readymade knowledge 2	3nd type of learning. deductive approach
Fluency	Pearson's coefficient	,178	,133
	Value (2-sided)	,169	,224
	N	61	85
Flexibility	Pearson's coefficient	,225	,247*
	Value (2-sided)	,081	,023
	N	61	85
Sophisticated Approach	Pearson's coefficient	,200	,085
	Value (2-sided)	,122	,438
	N	61	85

* Correlation is valuable at the point of 0.05 (2-sided)

Table 8.

		1st type of learning. using knowledge by searching	2nd type of learning. building readymade knowledge 1	2nd type of learning. building readymade knowledge 2	3rd type of learning. deductive approach
Ingenuity	Spearman’s coefficient	0,14	,097	,109	,214*
	Value (2-sided)	0,17	,392	,405	,049
	N	93	80	61	85
Fluency	Spearman’s coefficient	0,01	-,033
	Value (2-sided)	0,94	,774
	N	93	80
Flexibility	Spearman’s coefficient	124	,162
	Value (2-sided)	0,24	,152
	N	93	80
Sophistica-ted Approach	Spearman’s coefficient	0,16	-,038
	Value (2-sided)	0,13	,741
	N	93	80

References:

Berseneva, N.V. (2009) Dynamics of creative thinking development in ontogeny based on solving problems using quick wit. [Psikhologiyja poznaniya v oblasti psikhologii. Materialy mezhdunarodnoynauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii k uchenykh (27 nojyabrya 2009 g.)]. Bergfeld, Permskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet, 173.

Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B. (2002) Psychology of creative abilities. Moscow, Akademiya.

Brainerd, C. J. (1977) Feedback, rule knowledge, and conservation learning. Child Development. 48, 404–411. doi: 10.2307/1128633

Bruner, J. (1971) On cognitive development. [Issledovanie razvitiya poznavatel’noy deyatel’nosti]. Moscow, Pedagogika.

Burlachuk, L.F., & Morozov, S.M. (2000) Reference dictionary on psychodiagnostics. St. Petersburg, Piter.

Covington, M.C., Grutchfield R. S., Davis I. B., & Olton R. M. (1974) The productive thinking programm: A course in learning to think. Ohio, Merrill.

Davidson, J.E., & Sternberg, R.J. (1984) The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 58–64. doi: 10.1177/001698628402800203

Davis, G.E. (1976) Research and development in training creative thinking. Cognitive learning in children: Theories and strategies. Alien. N.Y.

Davydov, V.V. (1986) Problems of developmental learning. Moscow, Pedagogika.

Denney, N. W., Jeytinoglu, S., & Selzer, S. С. (1977) Conservation training in four-year-old children. J. Exper. Child Psychology, 24. doi: 10.1016/0022- 0965(77)90026-1

Druzhinin, V.N. (2001) Cognitive abilities. Structure, diagnostics, development. Moscow, PERSE.

Druzhinin, V.N., & Khazratova, N.V. Experimental study of the shaping influence of the environment on creativity. Psychological journal, 15(4), 83–93.

Dunker, K. (1965) Psychology of productive (creative) thinking. [Psikhologiya myshleniya]. Moscow, Progress, 86–234.

Elkonin, D.B. (1974) Psychology of teaching the younger schoolboy. Moscow.

Fancher, R.E. (1985) The intelligence men: Makersot the IQ controversy. N.Y., Norton.

Field, D. (1981) Can preschool children really learn to conserve? Child Development, 52(2), 326–334.

Gagne, R. M. (1970) The conditions of learning. N.Y., Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Galperin, P. Ya., & El’konin, D.B. (1967) On the analysis of J. Piaget’s theory on the development of child thinking. [Geneticheskaya psikhologiya Zh. Piazhe]. Moscow.

Galperin, P. Ya., & Georgiev, L.S. (1960) On the initial mathematical concepts. [Doklady APN RSFSR]. 1, 63–66.

Galperin, P.Ya. (1966) Psychology of Thinking and the Teaching on the Gradual Development of Mental Actions. [Issledovaniya myshleniya v sovetskoy psikhologii]. Moscow, Nauka, 236–277.

Guilford, J. (1965) Three sides of intelligence. [Psikhologiya myshleniya]. Moscow, Progress, 433–457.

Guilford, J. P. (1967) The nature of human intelligence. N.Y., McGraw-Hill.

Gurevicha, K.M., & Borisova, E.M. (1995) Psychological diagnosis of children and adolescents. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnaya pedagogicheskaya akademiya.

Hamel, В.R., & Riksen, В.О.М. (1973) Identity, reversibility, verbal rule instruction and conservation. Developmental Psycholog, 9, 66–72.

Iliyasov, I.I. (2001) A system of heuristic methods for solving problems. Moscow.

Kalmykova, Z.I. (1981) Productive thinking as the basis of learning. Moscow, Pedagogika.

Kuhn, D., & Angelev J. (1976) An experimental study of the development of formal operation thought. Child Development. 47, 697–706. doi: 10.2307/1128184

Kuhn, D., & Angelev J. (1976) An experimental study of the development of formal operation thought. Child Development, 47, 697–706. doi: 10.2307/1128184

Leontiev, A. N. (1980) Mastering the scientific concepts by students as a problem of pedagogical psychology. [Khrestomatiya po vozrastnoy i pedagogicheskoy psikhologii]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 161–186, 26.

Lerner, I. Ya. (1982) Development of students’ thinking in the process of teaching history. Мoscow, Prosveshchenie.

N.W., Jeytinoglu S., & Selzer S.С. (1977) Conservation training in four-year-old children. Child Psychology, 24. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(77)90026-1

Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972) Human problem solving. Englewood cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall.

Obukhova, L.F. (1972) Stages of development of children’s thinking. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

Piaget, J. (1969) Selected psychological works. Мoscow, Prosveshchenie.

Ponomarev, Ya. A. (1976) Psychology of creativity. Moscow, Nauka.

Rosenthal, T.L., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1978) Social learning and cognition. N. Y., Academic Press.

Rubinshtein, S.L. (1946) Fundamentals of General Psychology. Moscow.

Semenov, I.N. (1990) Issues of reflexive psychology of solving creative problems. Мoscow.

Siegler, R.S., & Liebert, R.M. (1975) Acquisition of formal scientific reasoning by 10’ and 13 year-olds: designing a factorial experiment. Developmental Psychology. 11, 401–402. doi: 10.1037/h0076579

Siegler, R.S., & Liebert, R.M. (1975) Acquisition of formal scientific reasoning by 10’ and 13 year-olds: designing a factorial experiment. Developmental Psychology, 11, 401–402. doi: 10.1037/h0076579

Smedslund, J. (1963) Pattern of experience and acquisition of conservation of length. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 4, 257–264. doi: 10.1111/ j.1467-9450.1963.tb01332.x

Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1991) Creating creative minds. Phi DeltaKappan, 72(8), 608–614.

Sullivan, E. (1967) Acquisition of conservation of substance through film modeling technique. Recent research on the acquisition of substance. Toronto, OISE, 53–72.

Talyzina, N.F. (1975) Management of the process of mastering knowledge. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

Teplen’kaya, Kh. M. (1968) On the issue how to teach children in school. [Zavisimost’ obucheniya ot tipa orientirovochnoy deyatel’nosti]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 124–152.

Tikhomirov, O.K. (1969) The structure of human thought activity. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

Torrance, E.P. (1966) Torrance tests of creative norms. Technical manual. N.Y.

Vernon. P.E. (1967) Psychological studies on creativity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 135–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1967.tb02191.x

Vygotsky, L.S. (1934) Thinking and Speech. Moscow.

Wickelgren, W.A. (1974) How to solve problems: Elements of a theory of problems and problem solving. N.Y., W.H. Freeman & Co.

Wohlwill, J.F. (1960) A study of the development of the number concept by scalogram analysis. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 97, 345–377. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1960.10534340

Wollach, M.A., & Kogan, N.A. (1965) A new look at the creativity – intelligence distinction. Journal of Personality, 33, 348–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6494.1965.tb01391.x

Zankov, L.V. (1975) Training and Development. Moscow, Pedagogika.

For citing this article:

Ilyasov I.I., Kostrova A.V. (2017). Connection between types of learning by P.Ya. Galperin with kinds of thinking in school students. National Psychological Journal. 3, 62-75.