STEAM loyihalar yordamida boshlang‘ich sinf o‘quvchilarida ijodiy va tanqidiy tafakkurni shakllantirish
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20062580Ключевые слова:
STEM, STEAM, ijodiy va tanqidiy fikrlash, pedagogik yondashuv, falsafiy yondashuv, kognitiv-psixologik yondashuv, ta’limiy yondashuv, loyihaviy ta’lim, XXI–asr kompetensiyalariАннотация
Zamonaviy ta’lim tizimida STEM va STEAM yondashuvlarini joriy etish o‘quvchilarda XXI–asr kompetensiyalarini,
xususan, tanqidiy va ijodiy fikrlash ko‘nikmalarini rivojlantirishning muhim omili sifatida talqin etiladi. STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) va STEAM (STEM + Arts) ta’lim yondashuvlarining o‘quvchilarning
tanqidiy fikrlash va ijodkorlik qobiliyatlarini rivojlantirishdagi o‘rni ilmiy adabiyotlar tahlili asosida yoritiladi. Tadqiqot jarayonida
tanqidiy fikrlash tushunchasining falsafiy, psixologik va pedagogik yondashuvlar asosidagi talqinlari tahlil qilinib,
ularning umumiy va sohaga xos jihatlari aniqlanadi. Shuningdek, STEM va STEAM ta’limiga asoslangan o‘quv faoliyatlari,
loyihaviy va hamkorlikka asoslangan metodlarning o‘quvchilarda yuqori darajadagi fikrlash ko‘nikmalarini shakllantirishga
ta’siri ko‘rib chiqiladi. Natijalar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, har ikkala yondashuv ham tanqidiy fikrlash va muammolarni hal etish
qobiliyatlarini rivojlantirishda ijobiy samara beradi, biroq STEAM yondashuvi san’at elementlarini integratsiyalash orqali
ijodkorlik va moslashuvchan fikrlashni yanada kuchliroq rag‘batlantiradi
Библиографические ссылки
1. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
2. Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment.
3. Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. Inquiry: Critical
Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26(1), 4–18.
4. Segura, W. A. (2017). The use of STEAM in higher education for high school teachers. In Proceedings of the 21st
World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI 2017) (pp. 308–312). Orlando, FL, USA.
5. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3),
223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
6. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics
test data. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
7. OECD. (2019). Future of Education and Skills 2030. OECD Publishing.
8. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: Longmans.
9. National Science Foundation. (2024). STEM Education. https://www.nsf.gov/education
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2026 MAKTABGACHA VA MAKTAB TA’LIMI JURNALI
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
