pp. 829-841 | Article Number: iejme.2016.078
Published Online: July 19, 2016
Article Views: 234 | Article Download: 334
Relevance of this problem is caused by the fact that the question of definition of cognitive space and its role in professional training of students is insufficiently developed. In this regard this article is directed to reveal the cognitive components promoting updating of subject matter of education and bringing out its priority parties. The leading technologies of research of this problem are technologies of cognitive activity, research technologies, technologies of creative development, technology of mastering of speech activity types with adequate speech making, self-activization, personification, etc. Results of the done work during which students have mastered the main functions of cognitive activity, the professional and communicative importance of cognitive components in aspect of expediency and relevance of their use are reflected in the article. Materials of article can be used in practical professional activity of higher educational institution teachers and comprehensive school teachers.
Keywords: Cognition, associative support, a cognitive integrity, conceptual definiteness, functionality, speech activity, cognitive components, perception, memory, understanding, a categorization
Andreyev, V. I. (2013). Systematization of the pedagogical and didactic laws integrative focused on the guaranteed quality of education. Education and self-development, 3(37), 3-10.
Castro, M. E., Niño, A. & Muñoz-Caro, C. (2009) GMAT. A software tool for the computation of the rovibrational g matrix. Computer Physics Communications, 180(7), 1183-1187.
Conner, M. (2006). Andragogy and Pedagogy. Direct access: http://agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.html.
Elina, E.G., Kovtun, E.N. & Rodionova, S.E. (2015). Competences and results of training: logic of representation in educational programs. The higher education in Russia, 1, 10-20.
Feldstein, D. I. (2009). Psychology of the person’s development as personality. Voronezh: MODEK. 454p.
Implementation of “Education and training 2010” work programme. (2010, November 17). Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. A Europian Reference Framework. Direct access: http://europa.eu.int/comm./education/policies/2010/doc/basicframe.pdf.
Kolesnikov, A. K. & Lebedeva, I. P. (2012). Modelling of satisfaction of consumers with educational services of the higher school. The higher education in Russia, 12, 37-45.
Krasinskaya, L. F. (2015). Teacher of the higher school: what kind should he be? The higher education in Russia, 1, 37-46.
Maslova, N. F. & Abashina, A. D. (2009). Professional training of students during design studies. The higher education in Russia, 1, 170-173.
McKenzie, J. (2001). How Teachers Learn Technology Best. The Educational Technology Journal. Direct access: http://fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html.
Minayev, I., Vostrukhin, A., Vakhtina, E. & Ushkur, D. (2008). Creation of laboratory base of the advancing training. The higher education in Russia, 9, 10-14.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching: Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Pearson Longman.116p.
Race, Ph. (1993). Never mind the teaching – feel the learning. Birmingham: SEDA. 80p.
Rbodes, F. T. (2001). The creation of the future. Ithaca. 34p.
Sleeman, D. (1992). Intelligent Tutoring Systems. New York: Academic Press. 345p.
Starodubtsev, V. A., Solovyov, M. A. & Valitova E. U. (2015). Pedagogical support of professional self-determination of students in higher education institution. The higher education in Russia, 1, 47-56.
Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. 425p.
Vebter, E. V. & Safyannikov, I. A. (2010). Project-Organized Learning Method in the System of Engineering Education of Russia by the Example of National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University. Barcelona: Creating Meaningful Learning Environments. 178p.
Zimnaya, I. A. (2001). Pedagogical psychology. Moscow: Logos. 384p.