(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2019)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2018)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2017)
(2016)
(2016)
Special Issue - (2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2015)
(2015)
Special Issue - (2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2012)
(2012)
(2012)
Special Issue - (2012)
pp. 1267-1274 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.397a | Article Number: ijese.2016.115
Published Online: April 26, 2016
Abstract
The article is devoted to the formation of students’ creative independence. The aim of the article is to identify and test pedagogical conditions of formation students’ creative independence studying the English language. The leading methods are analyses of scientific works and practice, empirical and experimental data, method of involved observation, modeling and experimental method. The experimental method aimed to identify formation of students’ creative independence at the English language class. The experimental work has shown the effective process of formation students’ creative independence in the experimental groups compared with traditional learning in the control groups. The authors has developed a didactic model and defined pedagogical conditions of formation students’ creative independence in the teaching process.
Keywords: creativity, independence, creative independence, personality, the formation stages and levels, experiment
References
Andreev, V. (2000). Teaching course for creative self-development. Kazan: Center of Innovative technologies, 608.
Barron, F. (1969). Creative Person and Creative Process. N.Y.: Holt. Rinebort and Winston, corp., 10, 212.
Downing, James P. (1997). Creative Teaching: Ideas to Boost Student Interest. Teacher Ideas Press, 225.
Drozina, V. (1997). Creative independence activity: theory and practice. Chelyabinsk: Fakel, 113.
Garunov, M. (1973). Individual work as a means of hoarding the experience of creative activity. Sovetskaya Pedagogica, 4, 52-57.
Hoffman, L. (1979). Applying experimental research on group problem solving organizations. Journal of Applies Behavioral Science, 15, 375 – 391.
Kalayci, S., & Humiston, K. R. (2015). Students’ Attitudes Towards Collaborative Tools In A Virtual Learning Environment. Educational Process: International Journal, 4(1-2), 71-86.
Kalmikova, Z. (1981). Productive thinking as a basis of teaching. Moscow: Pedagogy, 200.
Kaloshina, I. (1983). The structure and mechanisms of creative activity. Moscow: MSU, 168.
Kirsanov, A. (1982). Individualization of pedagogical activity as a pedagogical problem. Kazan: Kazan University, 224.
Krutetskiy, V. (1976). Psychology of teaching and bringing up pupils. Moscow: Prosvescheniye, 300.
Lerner, I. (1981). Didactic principles of teaching methods. Moscow: Pedagogy, 186.
Makhmutov, M. (1977). Organization of problem teaching at school. Moscow: Prosveschenie, 240.
Molyako, V. (1995). The strategy of solving new tasks in the process of creative activity. Psychological journal, 16 (11), 84-90.
Obukhova, N. (1990). The development of students' creativity as a pedagogical problem in High Schools of the USA. Kazan: Kazan University, 248.
Passov. Ye. (1989). The basic methods of teaching another languages communication. Moscow: Russkiy yazik, 276.
Pidkasistiy, P. (1980). Individual cognitive activity of pupils. Moscow: Pedagogica, 173.
Rathert, S. (2012). Functions of Teacher and Student Code-Switching in an EFL Classroom and Pedagogical Focus: Observations and Implications. Educational Process: International Journal, 1(1-2), 7-18.
Shubinskiy, V. (1988). Pedagogics of pupils’ creativity. Moscow: Znaniye, 80.
Susan F. Lafferty (2004). Overview of education in creativity and problem-solving in four-year colleges and universities. Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 43.