Connection between types of learning by P.Ya. Galperin with kinds of thinking in school students

• Main Authors: Ilya I. Ilyasov, Aksinia V. Kostrova
• Format: Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: Lomonosov Moscow State University 2017-09-01
• Series: Nacionalʹnyj Psihologičeskij Žurnal
• Subjects: P.Ya. Galperin; ypes of teaching by P.Ya. Galperin; success of training; types of thinking; development of thinking; creative thinking
• Online Access: http://npsyj.ru/pdf/npj-no27-2017/npj_no27_2017_062-075.pdf

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 type of learning can contribute to logical operations development and is partially to raise creative potential and can hardly promote abilities for solving insight problems.