UMUMTA’LIM MAKTAB O‘QUVCHILARIGA ORGANIK KIMYO FANIGA OID TABIIY HODISALARNI TUSHUNTIRISH ORQALI KREATIV KOMPETENTLIGINI RIVOJLANTIRISH METODIKASI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67227/kjdznn85Kalit so‘zlar:
ilmiy tushuntirish, tabiiy hodisa, organik kimyo, kreativ kompetentlik, hodisaga asoslangan ta’lim, da’vo–dalil–mulohaza, muqobil gipoteza, ijodiy transfer, ilmiy ijodkorlik.Abstrak
Maqola umumta’lim maktablarining yuqori sinf o‘quvchilarida organik kimyoga oid tabiiy hodisalarni ilmiy tushuntirish faoliyati orqali kreativ kompetentlikni rivojlantirish metodikasiga bag‘ishlangan. Tadqiqotda ilmiy tushuntirish va ijodkorlik o‘rtasidagi bog‘liqlik asoslanib, tushuntirish jarayoni muqobil gipotezalar yaratish, ularni dalillar bilan saralash va olingan bilimni yangi vaziyatga ijodiy ko‘chirishni o‘z ichiga olgan faoliyat sifatida talqin qilingan. Kundalik hayotda uchraydigan organik kimyoviy hodisalar (kesilgan olmaning qorayishi, mevalarning etilen ta’sirida pishishi, sutning achishi, xamirning ko‘pchishi, barglarning kuzda rang o‘zgartirishi va boshqalar) asosida “hodisalar banki” tuzilgan hamda “Kuzat – So‘ra – Taxmin qil – Isbotla – Tushuntir – Yarat” olti bosqichli metodik model ishlab chiqilgan. 10–11-sinf o‘quvchilari ishtirokida o‘tkazilgan pedagogik tajriba-sinov natijalari Mann–Uitni U-mezoni va Koen d effekt o‘lchami yordamida tahlil qilinib, metodikaning kreativ kompetentlik ko‘rsatkichlariga ijobiy ta’siri aniqlangan.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2023-yil 11-sentabrdagi “O‘zbekiston – 2030” strategiyasi to‘g‘risida”gi PF-158-son Farmoni // Qonunchilik ma’lumotlari milliy bazasi [Elektron resurs]. – 2023. – URL: https://lex.uz.
2. Umumiy o‘rta ta’lim muassasalarining 10-sinfi uchun kimyo fanidan o‘quv dasturi. – Toshkent: Respublika ta’lim markazi. – URL: https://www.uzbmb.uz.
3. OECD. PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematics, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017.
4. OECD. PISA 2025 Science Framework (Draft). – Paris: OECD, 2023.
5. Ergasheva M. T. O‘quvchilarning tabiiy-ilmiy savodxonligi monitoringida baholash dasturlari (PISA, TIMSS)dan foydalanish metodikasi: pedagogika fanlari bo‘yicha falsafa doktori (PhD) dissertatsiyasi avtoreferati. – Toshkent, 2023. – 77 b.
6. Meliqo‘ziyev D. J. PISA topshiriqlari asosida o‘quvchilarning tabiiy-ilmiy savodxonligini rivojlantirish // Academic Research in Educational Sciences. – 2021. – Vol. 2, № 12. – B. 57–62.
7. NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. – Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.
8. Krajcik J. S., Shin N. Project-Based Learning // The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences / ed. by R. K. Sawyer. – 2nd ed. – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. – P. 275–297.
9. Braaten M., Windschitl M. Working toward a Stronger Conceptualization of Scientific Explanation for Science Education // Science Education. – 2011. – Vol. 95, № 4. – P. 639–669.
10. McNeill K. L., Krajcik J. Supporting Grade 5–8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science: The Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning Framework for Talk and Writing. – Boston: Pearson, 2012.
11. Talanquer V. Explanations and Teleology in Chemistry Education // International Journal of Science Education. – 2007. – Vol. 29, № 7. – P. 853–870.
12. Sevian H., Talanquer V. Rethinking Chemistry: A Learning Progression on Chemical Thinking // Chemistry Education Research and Practice. – 2014. – Vol. 15, № 1. – P. 10–23.
13. Multiple Representations in Chemical Education / ed. by J. K. Gilbert, D. F. Treagust. – Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.
14. Chi M. T. H., De Leeuw N., Chiu M.-H., LaVancher C. Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding // Cognitive Science. – 1994. – Vol. 18, № 3. – P. 439–477.
15. Lombrozo T. The Structure and Function of Explanations // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. – 2006. – Vol. 10, № 10. – P. 464–470.
16. Driver R., Asoko H., Leach J., Mortimer E., Scott P. Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom // Educational Researcher. – 1994. – Vol. 23, № 7. – P. 5–12.
17. Posner G. J., Strike K. A., Hewson P. W., Gertzog W. A. Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change // Science Education. – 1982. – Vol. 66, № 2. – P. 211–227.
18. Runco M. A., Jaeger G. J. The Standard Definition of Creativity // Creativity Research Journal. – 2012. – Vol. 24, № 1. – P. 92–96.
19. Beghetto R. A., Kaufman J. C. Toward a Broader Conception of Creativity: A Case for “Mini-c” Creativity // Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. – 2007. – Vol. 1, № 2. – P. 73–79.
20. Hu W., Adey P. A Scientific Creativity Test for Secondary School Students // International Journal of Science Education. – 2002. – Vol. 24, № 4. – P. 389–403.
21. Jabbarova D. B. Kimyo fani o‘rganuvchilari ongida moddalarning hosil bo‘lish jarayonining mazmun-mohiyatini ularning genetikasiga asoslab tushuntirish // Maktabgacha va maktab ta’limi. – 2025. – № 3(11). – B. 17–20.
