March 9, 2011
15:4
9in x 6in
Russian Mathematics Education: Programs and Practices
b1073-ch10
On Mathematics Education Research in Russia
457
of diagnostic knowledge obtained from different disciplines and the
formation of their own diagnostic abilities. She stresses the need to
change the traditional system of testing, since, in accordance with
the new goals of education, the focus must be not only on testing
the assimilation of specific knowledge but also on testing students’
command of various methods of activity, and even on assessing the
record of the students’ emotional–axiological attitude toward learning.
Perevoschikova developed a theoretical model of such diagnostic
activity, singling out its various structural components (motives, goals,
objects, means, etc.). In particular, one chapter of the study is largely
devoted to developing a diagnostic toolkit. The author conducted
an experiment with teaching a course on “Methodological Issues in
Diagnostics,” which resulted in noticeable growth in the diagnostic
abilities of the experimental groups compared with the control groups.
Several studies are devoted to the development of creativity in
future teachers and/or future students of future teachers. The goal
of Afanasiev’s (1997) work is to develop and justify principles and
corresponding instructional tools aimed at the development of creative
activity by prospective teachers in the process of problem solving. The
author sees the principal means for the formation of such activity as
consisting of a body of educational–methodological problems, and
this means will be effective, in his opinion, if “the problems may
be solved using nontraditional methods” (p. 7). In his analysis of
creative activity, Afanasiev relies extensively on the existing literature on
problem solving. One of his contributions, as he writes, is “to develop
an algorithm for pedagogical actions aimed at solving new, original
problems, designed by us, which constitute a nonstandard system of
knowledge” (p. 34). His theoretical approach has been embodied in a
course that he has developed and taught: “Theory of Probability and
Mathematical Statistics.” Of note is the assessment system which he
chose to evaluate the efficacy of his approach. He established certain
parameters of student activity (such as the frequency of modeling or
the frequency of using various solutions or simply the average score),
and then evaluated students’ performance along these parameters, not
only in his own class but also in other, concurrently offered courses
in mathematics. By the end of the course that he himself taught,
March 9, 2011
15:4
9in x 6in
Russian Mathematics Education: Programs and Practices
b1073-ch10
458
Russian Mathematics Education: Programs and Practices
Afanasiev recorded a definite improvement in student activity along
the parameters he selected. In addition, it turned out that the quality
of the students’ assimilation of the content of this course (defined,
again, in accordance with the methodology developed by the author)
had also improved.
The work of Dorofeev (2000) is similar to the study just described.
Its aim is “to develop a foundation for the theory and practice of the
formation of the creative activity of future mathematics teachers … by
means of teaching them to search for rational solutions to problems”
(p. 7). The author proposes a new approach to teacher preparation
based on “a system of interconnected school-level geometric problems,
mathematics exercises, and simulation exercises, which facilitate the
formation of the student’s ability to ‘make discoveries’ ” (p. 11). He
defines four levels in the development of creative activity and offers an
instrument (a set of problems) for determining the level attained by a
teacher; he also offers certain methods and means for raising teachers to
higher levels, which are contained in the manuals he has written and the
courses he has designed. According to him, during the final assessment,
over 70% of students in experimental groups, for example, solved the
problems given to them, while only 50% of students in control groups
solved these problems. These and similar metrics enable the author to
argue for the effectiveness of the approach he proposes.
In contrast with the two studies just described, Ammosova (2000)
is concerned not so much with the problem of developing the future
teacher’s creative potential as with preparing the teacher to develop
the creative potential of the students, specifically elementary school
students. To develop the elementary school student as a creative
personality, in the author’s view, means to (1) help the student acquire
creative abilities, (2) develop the student’s creative imagination and
intuition, and (3) stimulate the student’s activity by placing demands
on the student (p. 20). On the basis of the theoretical conception
she developed, Ammosova has prepared the requisite methodological
supporting materials: courses in mathematics for future elementary
school teachers; programs and special courses for them, including
courses that prepare them for teaching electives to schoolchildren; and
