PDF
ZENODO
Published
2025-07-02
Section
Articles
How to Cite
How to Cite
PROJECT-ORIENTED APPROACH IN TEACHING MECHANICS AS A TOOL FOR DEVELOPING STUDENTS' INNOVATIVE THINKING
Narbekov Nodir
assistant professor, Jizzakh Polytechnic Institute, Republic of Uzbekistan, Jizzakh
Keywords: Insights, creativity, problem-solving, education, technology
Abstract
In this paper, the application of the "Insights Method" in educational settings is examined and analyzed in detail. The study explores how the method fosters creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills among students through the use of various technological tools. By focusing on the integration of visual aids, projectors, and interactive discussions, this work provides a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of these tools in enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes. Additionally, the research highlights the potential challenges and limitations associated with the use of such equipment in educational environments. The paper also addresses the aspects of the learning process that are impacted by the use of the "Insights Method," including the development of cognitive and collaborative skills. The study provides valuable insights into how different teaching resources and tools contribute to the overall learning experience, emphasizing the importance of creating an optimal environment for both individual and group activities. By analyzing the results and outcomes of the method, this work offers recommendations for improving the effectiveness of interactive learning strategies in modern education. Furthermore, it considers the role of teacher preparedness, adaptability, and continuous professional development in ensuring the successful implementation of innovative methodologies within diverse classroom contexts
References
1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
2. Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge.
3. Kalmuratova, A., & Kalmuratova, I. (2023). THE IMPORTANCE OF VALIDATION SYSTEM IN SPEAKING TESTS. Евразийский журнал академических исследований, 3(3 Part 3), 6264.
4. Kalmuratova, I., & Arepov, J. (2023). QARAQALPAQ HAM INGLIS TILLERINDE ATLiQTiN KOPLIK KATEGORIYASiNiN ANLATlliW OZGESHELIKLERI. Бюллетень педагогов нового Узбекистана, 1(12), 11-13.
5. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
6. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge.
7. Makhsetovna, K. I., & Shamuratovna, K. A. (2023). TYPES OF VALIDITY IN SPEAKING TESTS. American Journal Of Philological Sciences, 3(03), 18-21.
8. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. THRP.
