Abdulaev n. History course as a system of learning tasks. Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation in the field of education

Russian Historical Society, to which I was invited as editor-in-chief of the journal Teaching History at School. So, alas, it turned out that attempts to organize a professional community of history teachers from below and make the Association of Teachers of History and Social Science a body capable of representing the interests and views of a truly broad teaching community, organizing it and really influencing decisions made in the professional sphere, were not successful. I will not now analyze the causes of this sad, but in many respects a natural phenomenon. As a rule, decisions on important professional issues that significantly affect the work of a mass of teachers and methodologists who are forced to carry them out are made upstairs and the professional community is only confronted with the fact of the decision. In view of the established practice, it would be very interesting to hear the opinion top on a number of significant issues, for which I decided to use the invitation and attend the RIO meeting. Of course, I was curious about the historical part of the speeches, and I listened with interest and great attention to the report of A. G. Zvyagintsev on the Nuremberg Trials, the 70th anniversary of which the RIO meeting is timed to coincide with. But as a teacher and methodologist, I was more interested in the assessment educational activities Society, with a brief report on which was made by Academician A. O. Chubaryan.

One of the main merits of RIO is the development of the IKS (historical and cultural standard for the history of the Fatherland).

It is planned to hold a joint conference (extended meeting) with the Association of Teachers of History and Social Science following the results of the year of teaching in ICS.

The plans include assistance to the Ministry of Education and Science in improving educational process(the discussion of a new concept in social science was mentioned), as well as the improvement of programs for higher education.

I really looked forward to continuing the educational theme, but, alas, it did not follow. There are much more questions in education that relate to RIO than there are answers. But the information I was interested in was not voiced. I will try to list the questions to which I hoped to receive answers, but did not hear.

Question about ICS. It was touched upon in A. O. Chubaryan's speech, but his sparse coverage only gave rise to new questions. From ICS to national history there are many problems. A significant, I would say, overwhelming, part of the practicing teachers consider the ICS in history to be heavily overloaded and unrealizable in teaching. This, in my opinion, is happening because the compilation of IQS is primarily done by historians, and teachers, methodologists, teachers, i.e. those who should implement it, as a rule, are either on the sidelines or are completely relegated to side. Nevertheless, it is important to understand one psychological point. The fact is that historians go in their work “from the particular to the general”, restoring a complete picture of a historical period or phenomenon from the details. For them, particulars are extremely important, it is extremely difficult for them to refuse them, and the teacher goes in his work from the already existing general picture, which he must form in the minds of his students. Particulars for him are not so important and essential. And where the historian writes down ten particulars, two or three are enough for the teacher. But the historians have the last word, and this is where the "overload of the standard" comes from. It is necessary to take into account the presence of a regional lobby, for which it is “a matter of honor, valor and heroism” to insert “their own” heroes into the ICC. And for the future, it should be taken into account that the discussion of the ICS in history with a real consideration of the opinions of the teaching community can lead to the recognition of the fact that in its current form it is unrealizable, and it needs to either be significantly reduced (and change programs), or significantly increase the number of teaching hours. history at school. It would be interesting to know in advance the opinion of the RIO on this issue: is it ready to change the format for the development of ICS, or is it ready to come up with an initiative (and consistently achieve its implementation by the Ministry of Education) to increase the number of hours for teaching history? By the way, nothing was said either about the problems with the development of the ICS in social science, or about the colossal problems with the ICS in world history, which initially, as one of the participants in the meeting to discuss them, were simply monstrous. In general, a sad trend has been observed more and more often recently: programs, IKSs and other important documents for the educational sphere are accepted by absolutely not those who will have to implement them in classes and audiences. And this seriously affects the quality and content of documents, and the decisions made on them. Declarations must be backed up by practical solutions, and we in the professional community do not common point vision of what the system-activity approach in teaching history is in practice, and how it should be implemented in specific programs and textbooks. However, more about textbooks below. In addition, in his speech, A. O. Chubaryan said that RIO is going to sum up the results of the first year of teaching in ICS together with the Association of Teachers of History and Social Science, which also raises a reasonable question about what empirical materials and research will form the basis of this discussion . It is desirable to hear the answer to this question not on the opening day of the relevant conference and meeting. Taking this opportunity, I would like to say that our journal Teaching History at School is ready to publish practice-oriented materials on this topic.

The issue of interaction between RIO and the Association of History Teachers is largely related to the previous issue. At the last, III Congress of the Association, it was planned to create permanent working groups on a number of issues relevant to the teaching community. This, as mentioned above, is the problem of the participation of the professional teaching community in the development of ICS, the problem of control over the development and improvement of KIMs of the Unified State Examination in history, the problem of developing and testing new generation textbooks, and a number of others, no less actual problems. However, the idea of ​​creating working groups was not put into practice. This, in my opinion, deprives both the RIO and the professional community of teachers of the opportunity to interact quickly and take into account the opinion of not only historians, but also practicing teachers and methodologists. However, not a word was given to the problems of RIO interaction with the Association of Teachers of History and Social Science. But it is the teachers who are assigned the difficult function of putting into practice many historical concepts and projects.

So called difficult questions stories. The Institute of World History, together with the GAUGN and the Association of Teachers of History, began to implement a rather powerful project aimed at scientific and methodological study of problematic issues within the framework of the new IKS, which could help teachers in teaching. A number of interesting manuals have been published, developed jointly by historians and methodologists. However, the work on this project made it possible to accumulate experience that revealed not only achievements, but also problems in this area, which relate primarily to the interaction of historians and methodologists within the framework of this project, as well as the circulation of published manuals and options for their wide approbation. In solving these problems, the role of RIO with its capabilities can hardly be overestimated.

One of the most important and most painful issues is the question of three new lines of history textbooks developed and published by the Prosveshchenie, Drofa and Drofa publishing houses. Russian word". Looking through the materials for the general meeting of the Russian Historical Society received before the meeting, I read a phrase that interested me very much: “Following the results of testing new textbooks at school, the Rio Commission decided to recommend a line of textbooks edited by Academician A. V. Torkunov (i.e., a line of textbooks Prosveshcheniye Publishing House) as a RIO textbook. Taking into account the fact that the textbook "Enlightenment" (as well as the textbooks of two other publishers admitted to the publication of history textbooks) has been repeatedly criticized by the professional community, which is quite understandable and understandable, and the approbation and its criteria and format remained unknown to most of the professional community, I would like to know in more detail, on the basis of what RIO chose the textbook edited by A. V. Torkunov, who is the co-chairman of the Russian Historical Society? An important and relevant question is when and how the licensing of new lines of textbooks, which are prepared by publishers, will take place. Authors and methodologists have repeatedly raised the issue of giving publishers a longer period of time for development and postponing strict licensing deadlines, but, unfortunately, the problem of textbooks remained outside the scope of the speech, and the format of the meeting did not provide an opportunity to ask questions, let alone arrange a discussion. Inquiries "on the sidelines" only confirmed that the decision of the RIO on the textbook "Enlightenment" was adopted, but the details were not obtained. The problem of textbooks is further complicated by the fact that from a methodological point of view (which, by default or for other reasons unknown to me, is taken out of the scope of the discussion of RIO), they only formally correspond to the principles that are laid down in the new generation of Federal State Educational Standards, and this can seriously reduce their role in solving the problem of modernization historical education. Form an opinion about what new generation textbook not only in terms of content, but also in terms of methodology, now, in my opinion, is necessary. Since RIO participates in the examination of textbooks, it would also be interesting to know its position and opinion on this issue.

In conclusion, I want to say that, realizing the important role RIO plays in the organization and development of historical and social science education and decision-making within its framework, I would very much like to see new opportunities for a more intensive, and most importantly, productive dialogue between the Russian Historical Society and other members of the professional community.

What is X equal? Reflections of the participant of the meeting of RHS

Abdullaev Enver N. — Chief editor of the journal “Prepodavanie istorii v shkole” (Moscow)

Abdulaev E. N., 2016

Abdulaev Enver Nazhmutinovich— editor-in-chief of the journal Teaching History at School (Moscow); [email protected]

• Yu.A. Ovchinnikov, V.T. Ivanov
  For a series of works on the creation of a new class of membrane bioregulators and the study of the molecular basis of ion transport through membranes, 1978
• M.N. Kolosov, E.D. Sverdlov
  For a series of works in the field of molecular biology, 1984

State Prizes of the USSR and the Russian Federation in the field of science and technology

• Yu.A. Ovchinnikov, E.D. Sverdlov, V.M. Lipkin, N.N. Modyanov, G.S. Monastyrskaya and others.
  For a series of works on the structure and genetics of RNA polymerase, 1982
• VC. Antonov and others.
  For the cycle of works "Chemical foundations of biological catalysis", 1984
• V.F. Bystrov, V.T. Ivanov, V.I. Tsetlin, E.V. Grishin and others.
  For the series of works "Neurotoxins as a tool for studying the molecular mechanisms of nerve impulse generation", 1985.
• L.D. Bergelson, E.V. Dyatlovitskaya, Yu.G. Molotkovsky and others.
  For the cycle of works 1965-1983. "Structure and function of lipids", 1985
• N.G. Abdulaev and others.
  For a series of works on the study of transmembrane ion channels, 1986
• Yu.A. Ovchinnikov, E.D. Sverdlov, N.N. Modyanov, N.A. Aldanova, G.S. Monastyrskaya, N.E. Brode, N.V. Vladimirova, K.N. Janjugazyan, K.E. Petrukhin, Yu.A. Ushkarev and others.
  For the work "Molecular-genetic foundations of the organization of systems of active transport of cell ions", 1989
• V.P. Demushkin
  For the creation of elements of special equipment, 1991
• M.P. Kirpichnikov, D.A. Dolgikh and others.
  For the work "Principles of the structural organization of proteins and their application to the construction of new protein molecules: theory and experiment", 1999
• A.A. Formanovsky and others.
  For the work "Crown Compounds in Chemistry and Technology", 2000
• R.V. Petrov and others.
  For the work "Conjugated polymer-subunit immunogens and vaccines", 2001
• E.D. Sverdlov, S.A. Lukyanov
  For the development and implementation of a complex of technologies for analyzing the structure and functions of complex genomes, 2015

Prizes of the Government of the Russian Federation in the field of science and technology

• V.T. Ivanov, T.M. Andronova, M.V. Bezrukov, V.P. Malkova, A.I. Miroshnikov, V.A. Nesmeyanov, Yu. A. Ovchinnikov, L. I. Rostovtseva, I. B. Sorokina and others.
  For the development and creation of biotechnological production of licopide, a new immunocorrective drug, 1996
• R.V. Petrov, A.A. Mikhailova, L.A. Fonina and others.
  For the development, introduction into industrial production and clinical practice of a new type of immunocorrective drugs of a peptide nature: taktivin and myelopide, 1997
• V.G. Korobko, G.S. Monastyrskaya and others.
  For the development of technology for obtaining the substance of recombinant human interferon alpha 2b, finished drugs based on it and their introduction into medical practice, 2000
• A.A. Mikhailova, L.A. Fonina
  For a series of experimental and clinical studies in the field of biotherapy and immunodiagnosis of malignant neoplasms, 2005
• A.I. Miroshnikov, D.I. Bairamashvili, A.A. Zinchenko, V.T. Ivanov, S.A. Kosarev, T.I. Kostromina, N.V. Sizova, V.A. Lasman, V.G. Korobko and others.
  For the creation of production and implementation of genetically engineered human insulin into domestic healthcare practice, 2005

Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation in the field of education

• V.T. Ivanov, T.V. Ovchinnikov and others.
  For the creation of the scientific and practical development "Russian innovative educational and scientific complex for training personnel in the field of biotechnology" for educational institutions of higher vocational education, 2007

Award of the Government of the Russian Federation "Gratitude of the President of Russia"

• T.I. Sorkin, 2010

Lenin Komsomol Prize

• E.V. Grishin, A.P. Kiselev, V.M. Lipkin, N.N. Modyanov and others.
  For work on the primary structure of cytoplasmic aspartate aminotransferase, 1975

Big gold medal named after M.V. Lomonosov RAS

• V.T. Ivanov
  For outstanding contribution to the development of bioorganic chemistry, 2010

Gold medal named after V.A. Engelhardt RAS

• E.D. Sverdlov
  For the series of works "Structural, functional and evolutionary analysis of the genomes of pro- and eukaryotes, including humans: development of methodological foundations and ways to use the results in medicine", 2014

CRSSA Institute Medal

• A.G. Gabibov
  For contribution to the development of biochemistry and medical toxicology, 2013

European Academy Medal

• A.O. Chugunov
  For the work "Computer modeling of the structure and functions of biomembranes and membrane proteins", 2013
• A.A. Polyansky
  For the work "In silico analysis of structural and functional aspects of the dimerization of transmembrane domains of bitopic proteins", 2014
• M.A. Turchaninov
  For the work "Analysis of T-cell receptor repertoires using reverse transcription emulsion PCR and massive sequencing",
  2014

Prizes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Russian Academy of Sciences named after M.M. Shemyakina

• Yu.A. Ovchinnikov
  For the series of works "Research in the field of protein chemistry", 1980
• M.N. Kolosov, V.G. Korobko, V.N. Dobrynin
  For the cycle of works 1977-1982. "Synthesis of artificial genes", 1983
• N.G. Abdulaev
  For the work "Bioorganic chemistry of rhodopsins", 1983
• V.F. Bystrov, A.S. Arseniev
  For the series of works "Study of the structure and function of membrane peptides and proteins by NMR spectrometry", 1993
• V.P. Zubov
  For the work "Polymeric materials for biology and biotechnology", 1998
• IN AND. Zetlin
  For the series of articles "α-Conotoxins, tools for researching nicotinic receptors and the basis for the creation of new diagnostic and medicinal products", 2010.
• CM. Deev
  For a work cycle "Supramolecular Agents for Theranostics""Supramolecular agents for theranostics", 2016

Yu.A. Ovchinnikov and personalized gold medal

• V.T. Ivanov gold medal RAS them. Yu. A. Ovchinnikova
  For the series of works "Peptide preparations for medicine and veterinary medicine", 1992
• E.V. Grishin
  For the work "Molecular Basis for the Interaction of Natural Toxins with the Cell Membrane", 1994
• V.M. Lipkin
  For the series of works "Molecular mechanisms of phototransduction: cGMP phosphodiesterase and recoverin", 1997
• S.A. Lukyanov
  For the work "Fluorescent proteins: search, research and application in biotechnology", 2006

Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences named after A.N. Bach

• V.V. Mesyanzhinov
  For the work "Structure and mechanisms of folding of fibrillar supercoiled proteins", 1999

Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences named after A.O. Kovalevsky

• A.G. Zarayskiy
  For the work "Homeobox genes of the class ANF regulators early development brain of vertebrates”, 2006.

Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences named after I.I. Mechnikov

• CM. Deev
  For the series of works "Recombinant antibodies and their derivatives for targeted action on tumor cells", 2014.

Prize of the Russian Academy of Sciences named after A.A. Baeva

• M.P. Kirpichnikov
  For the series of works "Recombinant proteins as modern instrument for Structural Biology, Biophysics and Molecular Biology", 2016

International award in the field of nanotechnology RUSNANOPRISE

• S.A. Lukyanov
  For the work "Fluorescent proteins: search, research and application in biotechnology", 2012

Prize named after L.S. Lahiri

• Yu.N. Utkin
  For services to research on natural poisons and toxins, 2014

President's Award for Science and Innovation for Young Scientists

• D.M. Chudakov
  For the development of genetically encoded fluorescent markers for the visualization of objects and processes in biomedical research, 2012
• M.P. Nikitin
  For the development of next-generation "smart" nanomaterials for biomedical applications and the development of the fundamentals of autonomous biomolecular computing systems for theranostics, 2017

Moscow Government Prize for Young Scientists

• A.A. Buzdin
  For a series of works on the creation of a system for large-scale analysis of gene expression "OncoFinder", 2016
• A.A. Vasilevsky, A.I. Kuzmenkov, K.S. Kudryashova
  For studying the diversity of natural potassium channel blockers and developing molecular tools for fundamental research and screening systems based on them, 2016
• M.A. Shulepko, I.V. Shelukhina, D.S. Kudryavtsev
  For the development of methods for biotechnological production and analysis of the mechanisms of action of pharmacologically promising human neuroreceptor ligands, 2016
• A.S. Mishin, K.S. Sargsyan
  For the development of reporter systems for fluorescent labeling of proteins in living cells, 2017
• K.S. Mineev
  For his study of the spatial structure of cellular receptors with a single transmembrane segment, 2018
• Ya.A. Lomakin, A.A. Belogurov, A.V. Stepanov
  For the development of the first original domestic therapeutic agent for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, 2018

Medals of the Russian Academy of Sciences for young scientists and students with a prize

• A.A. Buzdin
  For the work "Genome-Wide Identification of Mobile Elements Specific for Human DNA", 2003
• D.M. Chudakov
  For the work "Fluorescent and photoactivated fluorescent proteins", 2004
• FROM. Mammadov
  For the work "Identification of insertional variability of retroelements in the human and primate genome", 2005
• A.S. Paramonov, Z.O. Shenkarev, E.N. Lukmanova
  For the work "Structure and molecular mechanisms of interaction of biologically active peptides with cell membranes and membrane receptors", 2010
• A.M. Bogdanov
  For the work "Light-dependent redox reactions involving green fluorescent proteins: fundamental and applied aspects", 2010
• M.P. Nikitin
  For the work "Multifunctional nanoparticles based on the barnase-barstar protein module and methods for studying their behavior in vivo", 2011
• IN. Shipunova
  For work" Comprehensive study multifunctional supramolecular complexes that have a controlled effect on eukaryotic cells in order to create effective agents for theranostics”, 2017.

We share the experience of implementing the Federal State Educational Standard

Abdulaev Enver Nazhmutinovich

editor-in-chief of the journal "Teaching History at School"

Moscow city

Email: [email protected]

ACTIVITY APPROACH

IN TEACHING HISTORY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK

REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW STANDARD

What are the main stages of setting a learning task and implementing it on the basis of an activity approach?

S____________________________________________________________

Abstract: Based on the new generation standard, the author of the article clearly defines the formation of such qualities in students as the ability to consciously organize and regulate their activities as meta-subject results of studying history in basic school.

Key words: competence and activity process, consistency, general modeling, initial contradictions, formulation, planning, organization of educational activities.

The new generation standard exists, puzzles, raises questions. If you try to identify the main methodological innovations of the new generation standard, then, first of all, two principles, two approaches to organizing educational process- Competence and activity. In the section "Characteristics of the content of the main general education in History" of the Explanatory Note to the Exemplary Curriculum in History for Grades 5-9 says that "the content of schoolchildren's training in history at the level of basic general education is determined taking into account the activity and competence-based approaches, in the interaction of the categories of "knowledge", attitudes, "activity". It provides for both the mastery of key knowledge, skills, methods of activity, and the willingness to apply them to solve practical, including new tasks. In the framework of this article, we want to dwell on the consideration of the implementation of the activity approach in teaching history courses at school.

The idea of ​​the activity approach as the principle of organizing the educational process, in our opinion, implies its systemic nature, i.e. the introduction of separate, particular creative questions, exercises and tasks into the learning process does not lead to the implementation of this approach. The program clearly defines the formation of such qualities in students as "the ability to consciously organize and regulate their activities" as meta-subject results of studying history in the basic school. (Example programs

on academic subjects. History 5-9 grades. M.2010, p. 6). What can serve as the basis for creating a system of educational activities? In my opinion, the basis of the methodological structure of this approach can be the formulation and implementation of a system of educational tasks for the history course being studied. By a learning task, we understand a problem, i.e., a question containing an internal contradiction, by solving which the student acquires all the necessary knowledge on the course or topic being studied and gets the opportunity to develop. It is also possible to single out a number of features and functions of the learning task.

First, the learning task should localize the material being studied and the activities associated with its study. So to the question: “What does it mean to study this course or topic?” we expect the answer: "It means to solve some problem formulated for a given topic or course." In the journal "Teaching history at school" we considered the system of educational tasks in the course of the history of Russia in the twentieth century. (See A. Yu. Morozov "The course of the history of Russia in the twentieth century as a system of educational tasks" NSP 2009, Nos. 1-5) This material can serve as an illustration of the above thesis.

Secondly, the learning task should be of a universal nature, i.e., its solution is impossible without mastering the entire amount of knowledge on the course or topic being studied. For example, the problem “Why were the Bolsheviks able to take and hold power?” is not applicable as a learning task in the course of the history of the entire twentieth century, but it may well serve as a teaching task for the topic "Russia in the period 1917-1921."

We share the experience of implementing the Federal State Educational Standard

Thirdly, the learning task should provide objective motivation and form one’s own idea of ​​learning activities in the subject (“To study history means to pose and seek solutions to certain problems”).

Since the educational task is the core of the methodological structure of the course being studied, it is necessary to designate it in this capacity and start from it when organizing educational activities. In connection with this, the following stages of setting an educational task and implementing an activity approach on its basis are possible.

First stage: general modeling.

At this stage, our task is to show the entire course or topic "from a bird's eye view". We show students the entire volume of material to be studied, and then concentrate their attention on individual details that students perceive in a relationship, in a complex way. When modeling, it is possible to use two options. The first is a preliminary generalization block, when time is laid down horizontally, the main problems or areas of activity, which are a classification of content, are placed vertically, and the main events or phenomena of the topic or course being studied are placed at their intersection. Material in the journal Teaching History at School is devoted to this modeling technique (see V.V. Sukhov “Blocks of preliminary generalization (on the tenth anniversary of the concept)”, PISh 2004 No. 9). The second is creative or figurative modeling, when any image acts as a model. For example, in the topic “Russia between East and West”, the following scheme can serve as such a model:

Commentary on the scheme:

IN early XIII centuries, fragmented Russia is attacked by the Mongols from the east and German crusaders and Swedish knights from the West. The war with the Mongols ends with the defeat of the Russian principalities and the establishment of the dependence of Russia on the state of the Golden Horde formed by Batu, and the attacks from the west were repulsed and the expansion stopped.

The second stage: highlighting the original contradiction or intrigue.

At this stage, we carry out the initial generalization of the material and form the basis for setting the learning task. The initial contradiction can be both external and internal. By extrinsic, I mean a variant where a contradiction is formulated by comparing two different themes or courses. An internal contradiction is formulated on the basis of the direct content of the course or topic being studied. For example, having studied the main events of the Time of Troubles, one can formulate a contradiction between two provisions: A. Russia in the era of the Time of Troubles was subjected to all the destructive influences that the state could be subjected to at that time. B. Despite this, the state survived and overcame the Time of Troubles. In the topic “Russia between East and West”, students can be drawn to the contradiction between the results of the struggle of the Russian principalities with the invasion of the Mongols (Russia has been dependent on the Horde for almost a quarter of a millennium) and the repulse of the aggression of the Swedes and the Crusaders (the expansion of the West was stopped). As an example of the wording of the intrigue, one can cite the intrigue to the topic “The era of palace coups”: Peter I dies without having time to write his will and leaving only two words “Give everything ...” on a piece of paper. After Peter, 6 emperors and empresses ruled. How can you think up whose name from the list of his followers Peter would put in his will? In the case of intrigue, we are already at the second stage smoothly moving on to the third stage.

The third stage: the formulation of the educational task and the planning of educational activities.

Based on the initial contradiction or intrigue, we deduce the formulation of the learning task, which, as a rule, is of an interrogative nature. Continuing the theme of the Time of Troubles, let's give an example of such a task: "Why was Russia able to overcome the Time of Troubles?" In the topic “Russia between East and West” already mentioned above, the learning task will be the question “Why did fragmented Russia submit to the East and be able to repel an attack from the West?”. At the same stage, preliminary planning of educational activities is carried out, which is a system of logically related questions. For example, in the topic "Russia between East and West" we highlight three main issues:

1. What were the Russian principalities in the period of fragmentation on the eve of the invasion?

2. What were the enemies of Russia, respectively, the knights and the Mongols?

3. What is the difference between the course of the fight against Mongol invasion and resistance to invasion from the west?

As part of the questions raised, we move on to the next, fourth stage.

Experiment and innovation at school 2012/2

We share the experience of implementing the Federal State Educational Standard

Fourth stage: organization of educational activities.

At this stage, within the framework of the questions posed, we offer students to complete educational tasks that have a certain motivation, algorithm and system for fixing the result. IN this case the concept of a learning task coincides with the concept formulated in the article

E. N. Belsky “Development learning tasks on history” (PISh 2007 No. 10). To answer the first question posed, students must collect data on the largest specific centers in a table:

Patterns of feoish disenchantment

\ L G1. FERTILITY LAND F / V J

JL_L I H. NO STRONG EXTERNAL BPAIA

^4. STRONG CENTRAL POWER^

"s\KHaw-eo, CRITERIA^. Novgorod land Vladimir- SuZAAL PRINCIPALITY Galicia-Volyn principality Kiev principality

I. Geography KDE POSITION AND SUITABLE CONDITIONS

C. ACTIVITIES OF RESIDENTS (farm)

G. Social structure (generally)

G. Political development

trend-total

We break the second question into a series of questions that students must answer using both the material already studied (course on the History of the Middle Ages, grade 6) and new information contained in the textbook or in the teacher's story:

What are the goals of the crusades?

What types of weapons and tactics did the crusaders use?

Why did the Mongol Empire arise?

What is the reason for the victories of the Mongols?

What is common between the enemies of Russia in the east and in the west?

In order to answer the third point-question of the plan, students must gradually study the course of events in the east (Batu's invasion of North-Eastern and Southern Russia) and in the west (capture knightly orders Baltic States, the Battle of the Neva, the Battle of the Ice, the personality and activities of Prince Alexander Nevsky). After studying, it is necessary to try to highlight the features of events and analyze them. The results of the analysis will lead the students, as the approbation of working with this approach within the framework of the specified topic shows, to solve the set educational task.

Thus, the activity approach implemented in this variant allows us to organize a system learning activities during which students will purposefully extract and study all the most important information within the framework of this topic and apply it to solve the problems posed, which, in our opinion, will contribute to the formation of their ability to apply historical knowledge and solve creative problems, set within the requirements of the new standard .

Literature

1. Verbitsky A.A. Competence-based approach: problems and conditions for implementation. // Innovative projects and programs in education. - 2009. - No. 2.

2. Verbitsky A.A. Grounds for the introduction of a competency-based approach to education // Municipality: innovation and experiment. - 2009. - No. 3.

3. Sidenko A.S. Guide to the website of the Federal State educational standard second generation: main functions and content. // Innovative projects and programs in education. - 2010. - No. 2

4. Sidenko A.S. Master Class: " Innovation activity teachers in the context of the introduction of the second generation of the Federal State Educational Standards” // Municipal Education: Innovations and Experiment - 2010. - No. 4.

5. Chernushevich V.A. Context-activity approach to the analysis of the problems of the educational process. // Innovative projects and programs in education. - 2011. - No. 2.

6. Shibaeva S.N. Implementation of educational cooperation within the competence-based approach. // Municipal entity: innovations and experiment. - 2011. - No. 2.

Experiment and innovation at school 2012/2

Title: EGE. Workshop on history. Preparation for implementation 2(B).

The history workshop is focused on preparing students high school to successfully pass the Unified State Exam.
The book contains a detailed analysis of all types of tasks of part 2 (B), more than 120 test tasks level B for practicing each type of assignment on the material of the entire school course in the history of Russia, as well as answers to all assignments.
The workshop is focused on classes during the academic year, however, if necessary, it will allow, as soon as possible, just a few days before the exam, to identify gaps in the student's knowledge and work out those tasks in which the most mistakes are made.
The book is intended for history teachers, parents, tutors, and secondary school students.

The easiest way to dial maximum score in part 2(B) - know the correct answer. Part B, unlike part C, does not involve active and large-scale operation of the existing knowledge base, almost does not involve the transformation of factual information into a set of theses or more or less broad historical generalizations. With the possible exception of working with a text fragment, part B can be performed almost mechanically. Indeed, what could be easier than to build a chronological sequence of events Northern war in the event that you have a good idea of ​​its stages both on land and at sea?! You just need to know, that's all! But what if you do not have the knowledge to answer the question? Or is there, but they are not enough? However, if the student does not have the necessary information, this does not mean that he does not know anything at all. He probably has some other information, some other knowledge on some other period. This is exactly what you need to be guided by when completing the tasks of part B. single exam: we do not know the correct answer, but we try to deduce it, drawing on other knowledge that we have.
We proceed from the following premise: the student has some knowledge of the subject. Perhaps episodic and scattered, received not in lessons, but as a result of Internet surfing, on forums and in communities. They do not line up in a single picture, they do not form a plot historical canvas, but these units of information can help come to the correct answer. The information can be very different, and the sources of information - the most incredible.

CONTENT
Introduction 4
Analysis of all types of tasks of part 2 (B) 9
Tasks to restore the chronological sequence (Bl, B5, B15) 9
Tasks for determining the characteristic features (facts) of the historical period (phenomenon), three out of six (B2, B6, B9, B12) 15
Tasks for correlating two series of information (ВЗ, В7, BIO, B13) 22
Tasks for the analysis of a historical source / historiographic text (B4, B8, Bll, B14) 30
Tasks for self-study 37
Level B Workout Set 1 37
History of Russia from antiquity to the end of the 16th century. (early 17th century) 37
History of Russia XVII-XVIII centuries 42
Russia in XIX at 46
Russia in the XX - early XXI at 49
Level B Workout Package 2 60
History of Russia from antiquity to the end of the 16th century. (early 17th century) 60
History of Russia XVII-XVIII centuries 65
Russia in XIX at 71
Russia in the XX - early XXI in 76
Answers 84
Level B Workout Package 1 84
Level B Workout Set 2 86
Description of the forms of the Unified State Exam 88
Extract from instructions for filling out forms 88

Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the USE book. Workshop on history. Preparation for implementation 2(B). Abdulaev E.N., Morozov A.Yu., Puchkov P.A. 2011 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.

• USE, Practicum in history, Preparation for the implementation of part 2 (B), Abdulaev E.N., Morozov A.Yu., Puchkov P.A., 2011
• OGE, Cartographic workshop on the history of Russia XX-beginning of the XXI century, grades 9-11, Morozov A.Yu., Abdulaev E.N., Sdvizhkov O.V., 2016
• OGE, Cartographic workshop on the history of Russia, XIX-beginning of the XX century, grades 9-11, Morozov A.Yu., Abdulaev E.N., Sdvizhkov O.V., 2015
• OGE, Cartographic workshop on the history of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 18th century, grades 9-11, Morozov A.Yu., Abdulaev E.N., Sdvizhkov O.V., 2016

The history course is seen as one system solving educational problems. This author's approach to the study of history provides the student with the opportunity to actively participate in the process of cognition, and allows him to develop interest in the subject being studied. The basis of the approach is a learning task containing an internal contradiction. In the process of solving a learning problem, the student performs a certain algorithm of learning actions, studies the required amount of material. Thus, not only educational, but also developing learning goals are achieved. The main structural elements of the learning process are:
1. Stage of general modeling
To solve thematic educational tasks, blocks of preliminary generalization are used as an indicative basis for actions, on which, with the help of symbols, the most important events and phenomena of the period.

(For more details, see Fomin S.A. Materials for preparing for the exam on the topic "Russia in 1917-1921." // Teaching history at school. - 2007. - No. 10 - P. 50)

 Another possible kind of model is an image
(drawing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact)

(For more details, see Abdulaev E.N., Morozov A.Yu. Second World War in school course history // Teaching history at school. - 2009. - No. 7 - S. 15)

2. Search for contradictions in content or search for intrigue
These can be external (comparison of two topics) or internal contradictions (as an example, we can cite a lesson on the topic "Russia between East and West"). Formulation of the problem (task): why were the fragmented Russian principalities and lands able to repulse the West and submit to the East?