Reprinted on the recommendation of the Editorial and Publishing Council of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. USSR
A.N. Leontiev
Selected psychological works
Volume 1
full members and corresponding members
Academies
pedagogical sciences USSR
Academy of Pedagogical Sciences
A. N. Leontiev
Favorites
psychological
Edited by
V. V. Davydova, V. P. Zinchenko, A. A. Leontyev, A. V. Petrovsky
Moscow
"Pedagogy"
BBK 88
Reprinted on recommendation
Editorial and Publishing Council
Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. USSR
Compiled by A.G. Asmolov, M.P. Leont'eva
Reviewers:
Doctor of Psychology A. N. Sokolov, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences E. I. Rudneva
Leontiev A.N. Selected psychological works: In 2 volumes. T. I -M .: Pedagogy, 1983.- 392 p., Ill.- (Proceedings of Doctor of Sciences and Corresponding Members of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences).
In the subtitle ..: APN USSR. Per. 1 p. 50 k.
The volume contains works grouped into three thematic sections. The first section includes works from different years, reflecting the formation and development of the methodological foundations of modern Soviet psychology. The second section includes two major works, which reveal the provisions on the emergence of mental reflection and its development in the process of phylogenesis before the birth of human consciousness. The third section contains works devoted to the study of mental development in the process of ontogenesis. A number of works are published for the first time.
For specialists in the field of psychology, pedagogy and philosophy.
L 4303000000-025 24 _ g, BBK 88
© Pedagogika Publishing House, 1983
To the 80th anniversary
from the day of birth
laureate of the Lenin Prize,
professors
Alexey Nikolaevich
LEONTIEVA
From the compilers
Offered to the attention of the reader, "Selected psychological works" by A. N. Leontiev - the first posthumous edition of the works of an outstanding scientist. In this regard, the editorial board is faced with the difficult task of choosing from the extensive scientific heritage of A. N. Leontiev precisely those works that most fully convey the main thing in his work. How can one single out that logical core in the mosaic of works written at different times and on different occasions, that, as Aleksey Nikolayevich himself would say, “giving meaning to everything done by the motive”? Neither the chronology of the appearance of works, mechanically arranging all works on a faceless time axis, nor fundamental collections, such as "Problems of the Development of the Psyche", facilitate the solution of this task. The greatest thing that the collections reflect is the logic of one or another period of A. N. Leontyev's creative searches, and not a single panorama of his complex and sometimes contradictory theoretical heritage. Such collections do not reveal the place occupied by A. N. Leont'ev both in the school of L. S. Vygotsky and in the history of psychological science. In this regard, in this edition, the chronological principle is everywhere subordinated to the logical one.
The logical principle underlying the composition of this edition of the psychological works of A.N. Leont'ev, can be characterized as the principle of historicism, a historical approach to the study of mental phenomena; AN Leontiev fought all his life for the embodiment of this principle in the fabric of concrete research. The composition of selected works is composed in such a way as to help the reader to see more clearly the formation of Soviet psychology as a "historical human psychology". In accordance with this, the two-volume edition is divided into five logically related sections.
The first section "Historical approach to the study of mental phenomena" reflects the development of AN Leont'ev one of the central ideas of his theory - the idea of the socio-historical nature of the human psyche. The section opens with a small article in which A. N. Leontiev, saying goodbye to L. S. Vygotsky, seems to be taking over the creative baton from him. In it and the next article, the essence of the teachings of L.S. Vygotsky and an assessment of his personality, his role in Soviet psychology is given. Then comes the already classic experimental study on the psychology of memory, in which the principles of the cultural-historical theory of the psyche are implemented, and the first published study of speech, previously known to psychologists only from the oral speeches of A. N. Leontiev. The section ends with the author's relatively late works "Biological and social in the human psyche" and "On the historical approach to the study of the human psyche", in which A. N. Leontyev sums up, as it were, the development of the principle of historicism in psychology.
Thus, all the articles of the first section are united by the idea that to comprehend mental phenomena means to study them in the process of development, to reveal the history of their formation. But any story will only lead to a superficial description, if the forces that create it are not revealed. What gives rise to psychic reflection? What are the patterns of its functioning and development? Answering the question about the driving forces of the development of the psyche, about the true demiurge of mental reflection, A. N. Leont'ev introduces a category of activity, in the analysis of which he sees the initial moment of cognition of the world of mental phenomena. The historical approach remains fruitless if it does not implement the idea of the analysis of objective activity as the main method. This is the alpha and omega of the general psychological theory of the activity of A. N. Leontiev.
In the second, third and fourth sections, the principle of the historical approach to the psyche is concretized on the material of phylogeny, ontogeny and functional development of mental reflection. Even the titles of the sections themselves speak of the accepted logic of the composition of Selected Psychological Works: the emergence and evolution of the psyche, the development of the psyche in ontogenesis, and, finally, the functioning of various forms of mental reflection. All these sections are united by the idea of A.N. Leont'ev that
only through the analysis of objective activity can modern psychology come to the disclosure of the true laws of the functioning and development of the psyche, to an objective study of the mental. If, however, on early stages the formation of the school of L.S.Vygotsky, A.N. reflections in the course of biological evolution, or the development of the child's psyche, or the generation of an image, then later theoretical searches of A. N. Leont'ev are increasingly focused on the study of objective activity itself, its structure and dynamics, its explanatory potential.
These searches were given the most complete form in the work “Activity. Consciousness. Personality ”, which opens the last, fifth, section of the two-volume book. This section also contains works written and partially published by A. N. Leontiev in the last years of his life. In them., As it were, outlined the "zone of proximal development" of the theory of activity, its prospects.
The two-volume edition includes the first published complete bibliography of A. N. Leontiev's works. All articles are provided with short comments.
This is, in general terms, the composition of "Selected Psychological Works" by A. N. Leontiev.
A.G. Asmolov, M.P. Leont'eva
7
A. N. Leontiev and development modern psychology
There are scientists whose fates are inextricably linked with the history of the formation of science and their country. These include, along with such outstanding psychologists as Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, Alexander Romanovich Luria, and Alexei Nikolaevich Leontiev. Of course, speaking about the personality of this scientist, one could characterize him as one of the founders of Soviet psychology and the creator of the theory of activity, without which domestic science is inconceivable today, one could cite a long list of his ranks and regalia. But will such information bring even one iota closer to understanding the creativity and personality of A. N. Leont'ev? Will they reveal to us the secret of where the impudence that prompted them to set themselves the task of creating a new type of psychology - Marxist psychology - came from three young people - L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leont'ev, and A. R. Luria? They took up this task, unheard of in its difficulty, took it up and solved it.
The beginning of the scientific activity of L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev and A. R. Luria almost coincides with the beginning of history Soviet country... And it is very significant that the construction of new
Howl psychology began not with theory, but with practice: pedagogical, child psychology, defectology (L. S. Vygotsky); clinic and study of identical twins (A.R. Luria); concept formation at schoolchildren (A. N. Leontiev); the psychological foundations of illustrating children's fairy tales and the development of a child's thinking (A. V. Zaporozhets); the mastery of the simplest tools by children (P. Ya. Galperin); development and formation of the memory of schoolchildren (P.I. Zinchenko) - this is a far from complete list of those practical problems that were solved in the team headed by L. S. Vygotsky, and after his death by A. N. Leontiev and A. R. Luria. They worked hard and joyfully. For them, theory was a means, not an end. They all participated in the great transformations taking place in the country, did everything to ensure that psychology made its contribution to these transformations. It is characteristic that, speaking about practice, Vygotsky repeatedly compared it with a stone that the builders despised and which became the cornerstone. And this path turned out to be correct. It was he who led to the theory.
In the first scientific works there is a unique charm, an amazing freshness of the look bordering on insight. And maybe that is why the first works are more marked with the seal of the personality of the writer. Such a work, undoubtedly, is the first book of A. N. Leont'ev, "The Development of Memory" (1931), which contains the main provisions of the future psychological theory of activity.
Mention should also be made of the struggle and ideological polemics in which this theory was born. And the struggle was not only outside, but also within the school of L. S. Vygotsky. In the first large publication of P.I.Zinchenko, dated 1939, was given in the highest degree severe criticism of the works of L. S. Vygotsky and A. N. Leont'ev, but at the same time the author of the article did not fail to point out that his study of involuntary memory was carried out under the direction of A. N. Leontiev.
The importance of the psychological theory of activity for the development of modern psychology can be briefly characterized as follows.
1. Its development in our country is not a trend, but the imperative of the times, it is the achievement of the entire psychological science. Its creation was made not only by the school of L. S. Vygotsky - A. N. Leontiev, but also by a number of outstanding psychologists who belonged to other directions and schools. You can name the names of B. G. Ananyev, M. Ya. Basov, P. P. Blonsky, S. L. Rubinstein, A. A. Smirnov, B. M. Teplov, D. N. Uznadze. The most significant was the contribution of S. L. Rubinstein.
2. Psychological theory activities assimilated, mastered, practically processed the achievements and experience of world psychological science.
3. This theory has incorporated general scientific achievements, the explication of which is an important condition for the development of any scientific
discipline. Such achievements include the theory of evolution of the outstanding biologist A.N. Severtsov, the unique studies of the creator of biopsychology V.A. E. Vvedensky, A. A. Ukhtomsky, I. P. Pavlov, and especially N. A. Bernstein.
This theory is inseparable from the advanced historical and philosophical tradition, the explication of the achievements of which in relation to the tasks of psychology was carried out primarily by L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein, and then continued as followers and disciples of Alexei Nikolaevich Leontiev himself and Soviet philosophers and methodologists of science, such as E. V. Ilyenkov, P. V. Kopnin, V. A. Lektorsky, A. P. Ogurtsov, V. S. Shvyrev, E. G. Yudin and many others ...
The creation of a psychological theory of activity is associated with the comprehension of the achievements of the humanities and art. These achievements in the works of L. S. Vygotsky, D. B. Elkonin, A. A. Leontyev have been mastered only partially, and further work on the development by psychologists of the scientific heritage of such researchers of art as M.M.Bakhtin, P. Valeri seems to be very relevant. , A. F. Losev and many others.
The psychological theory of activity is closely related to applied industries psychology. Between this theory and its practical applications, there is an ongoing exchange and mutual enrichment of ideas, methods, and results. In a number of branches of psychology, this theory has reached high levels of operationalization in the best sense of the word. In other words, the main provisions of the theory of activity are reflected in almost all sections of psychological science. Therefore, it is not by chance that it is called the general psychological theory of activity.
In an attempt to understand and evaluate any case, it is necessary first of all to proceed from its purpose. Is no exception in this regard scientific theory... The final point, the benchmark for the development of the psychological theory of consciousness was for A. N. Leont'ev the problem of the "psychological world", the "image of the world." The starting point of his theoretical construction was the category of life. Simultaneous and, in a sense, counter movement from these categories, which are limiting for psychology, should have provided a theory of human consciousness. At the same time, both categories are constantly present in every moment of the development of a given theory, constituting its soul, its innermost essence. These categories were already present,
the truth is not in such a clear form, in the first works of A. N. Leont'ev on the problem of the emergence of the psyche ”.
It is useful to recall the ideological situation that developed in L. WITH. Vygotsky by the 30s. Vygotsky himself at that time was most interested in the problem of the genesis and structure of consciousness. Ultimately, his studies of higher mental functions, such as emotions, imagination, thinking, and speech, were aimed at solving it. It is no coincidence that L. S. Vygotsky ends the book Thinking and Speech as follows: “Consciousness reflects itself in a word, like the sun in a small drop of water. The word refers to consciousness as a small world to a large one, as a living cell to an organism, as an atom to space. It is the small world of consciousness. A meaningful word is a microcosm of human consciousness ”(1934, p. 318). The same goal was pursued by the first studies of attention and memory carried out by A. N. Leontiev under the guidance of L.S. Vygotsky.
In the mid-30s. A. Leont'ev addresses the problem of the genesis of the psyche. Together with A.V. Zaporozhets, he develops a hypothesis according to which the emergence of elementary sensitivity is associated with cardinal changes in the living conditions of organic beings. He connects the transformation of irritability into sensitivity with the transition of organisms from existence in a homogeneous environment to life in an environment that is materially formed, consisting of separate objects. Solving the problem of the emergence of the psyche, A. N. Leont'ev went from the world (living conditions), narrowing it down in formulating his hypothesis to the subject of need. Thus, he consistently moves from the concept of "life" to the concept of "vital activity", then to the concept of "activity", which becomes central in his psychological concept. An equally important role in this concept is played by the concept of “subject of activity”. Just as activity itself is a unit of life, so the main moment that constitutes it - the object of activity is nothing but a unit of the world. Without taking into account this provision, it is impossible to understand the idea of A. N. Leont'ev, according to which the motive of activity is an object that meets the needs of the subject.
Indeed, why is an external object, a thing, the motive of my activity? But can he by himself motivate me? Is it not my need, desire, is it not my anticipated pleasure of mastering this object or contact with it that compel me to act? And in general, I must first at least perceive this thing, before it (which means that it is no longer she, but her image) can have a motivating effect on me. After all, even if we assume for a moment that things by themselves induce the subject to activity, then in this case he becomes a puppet in the hands of things: activity would be actualized whenever an external object appears near the subject, regardless of whether the subject has moment the need for it or not. But since such a situation is not actually observed, then, consequently, the initial
the assumption that the function of the motive of activity is performed by its object is incorrect.
In such reasoning lies, as Alexei Nikolaevich liked to say, "a great psychological truth, but at the same time a great lie." Things by themselves really cannot induce activity. But this does not mean that the subject does not have this ability. The methodological core of the issue lies in the fact that the subject does not live in the world of things and events by themselves, as the abstraction of the isolated Robinson human existence suggests. The essence of this abstraction lies in the fact that in ontology, a person (as an abstract isolated human individual) and the world are considered separately and independently of each other. The latter, of course, can be taken and is taken at the same time "only in the form of an object or in the form of contemplation, and not as a sensually human activity, practice, not subjectively" 1. In other words, if we did not initially put in the ontology of psychological theory some positive, practical, active, vital connection between the individual and the world, but consider them as two separate and opposing things and only then look for those forms of connections that follow from the nature of these things, then we will inevitably come to one of the two possibilities provided in the above statement of K. Marx. In the first case, we will see reality through the eyes of an absolute external observer, who does not take into account the fact of the presence and action in the world of a living and passionate subject (that is, we take it only in the form of an object). In the second case, we will see reality through the eyes of, so to speak, an absolute subjective observer who does not take into account the objective characteristics of reality that are revealed only in practical activity (i.e., we take reality only in the form of contemplation).
A. N. Leont'ev in his research proceeded from ontological premises that are directly opposite to the abstraction of the robinson human existence. The ontology underlying the psychological theory of A. N. Leontiev's activity can be called the ontology of "human existence in the world." It proceeds from the fact that nowhere, except for our abstractions, do we find a person before and outside the world, outside of its real and effective connection with objective reality. His life world is, in fact, the only motivator, source of energy and content of life. When, in order to construct a psychological theory, we single out a separate activity as the units of the subject's life, then within the framework of this positive abstraction the world is represented by a separate object, which in essence is nothing but a unit of the life world. An object, therefore, is not just a thing, but a thing that is already included in being, which has already become a necessary "organ" of this being, already subjective
1 Marx K., Engels F. Works, vol. -42. with. 261.
mim the life process before any special (contemplative) mastering of it.
This is one of the most difficult points in the psychological theory of activity. Perplexity and objections are often expressed about it, including those of the kind that A. N. Leontyev's concept of motivation does not correspond to the facts. If it were true, living beings, faced with an object of need, would each time begin to satisfy it, would become slaves of the objective world. As for this objection, it is no different from the "refutation" of the law of free fall by empirical facts of falling bodies that do not correspond to the formula of this law. The fact is that any regularity, including the regularity of the motivation of activity by an object, which is now being discussed, is realized in its pure form only under ideal conditions. In this case, such a condition is the "separateness" of activity, that is, the absence of influence on its motivation from other activities of the subject, but this is precisely the point in the theoretical movement where the idea of the subject of need as the only instance of motivation ceases to work and requires the introduction of additional ideas about the internal processes of consciousness, mediating the motivation of activity. Consequently, objective activity gives rise to the psyche, as an organ of its own regulation, freeing activity from fatal situational dependence. And the higher mental functions in the psychological theory of activity retain the features of this objective activity. This understanding is used to build an approach to the study of the processes of perception, memory, thinking as systems of perceptual, mnemonic mental actions, the approach developed by the school of L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, A. R. Luria.
Thus, the thesis is confirmed that the activity theory of the psyche and consciousness is built under the sign of two leading categories - life and the world. To understand this theory correctly, you need to remember all the time in which ontological space it is being built. This space is not physical and not phenomenal, although it is connected with both, being, as it were, on their borders, it is the life world, "the matter of which is activity." And this matter is characterized by its own biodynamic and sensory tissue. In addition, since we are talking about a person and human activity, this world is saturated with signs, symbolism, normativity, which objectively (i.e., regardless of individual consciousness and arbitrariness) structure it. Here we are already talking not about the objective activity of man, but about the historically developing objective activity of mankind. Therefore, according to A. N. Leont'ev, "... the" operator "of perception is not just accumulated associations of sensations and not apperception in the Kantian sense, but social practice" (present, ed., Vol. II, p. 133). But perception at the same time obeys general properties, connections, laws of reality: “This is another, more complete expression of the objectivity of subjective
image, which now appears not only in its original reference to the reflected object, but also in its reference to the objective world as a whole ”(ibid., p. 133).
And here we meet with an extremely interesting evolution of the views of A. N. Leont'ev. If, in the study of the genesis of sensations, he had to narrow the world around, reduce it to a separate object of satisfying a need or even to its individual properties, then almost 40 years later, in the analysis of complex processes of perception, A. N. Leontiev makes the opposite move. He "expands" a separate subject to the boundaries of the objective world as such. It turns out that the condition for the adequacy of the perception of an individual object is an adequate perception of the objective world as a whole and the relatedness of the object to this world. What has been said means, among other things, that the new ontology of psychological reality required a different conceptual scheme for its description and the development of new methods for its study in comparison with those that were developed in classical psychology. Let us illustrate this with the example of the activity theory of consciousness, taking it in a historical context.
The theory of consciousness of classical psychology is inseparable from its introspective method. Consciousness, observed as a direct internal reflection, was represented either as a space in which mental processes unfold, or as a special quality of these processes - their greater or lesser "illumination". One way or another, consciousness was understood as a special essence that has an independent being, which can and should be studied, being distracted from those impurities that are introduced into it from the outside: from the experience of the social relations of the individual and his interaction with things outside world... In other words, the method of studying consciousness consisted in purifying direct experience from any external contents, in deobjectivating it, and the resulting remainder was the desired pure consciousness. However, each time it turned out that after such "evaporation" the introspection of the researcher rested on emptiness, so that there was no choice but to take it for consciousness itself.
The analysis of the classical psychology of consciousness, carried out by A. N. Leont'ev, showed the futility of the study of individual consciousness outside of its connections, firstly, with the concrete being of a person and, secondly, with public consciousness.
This means one thing, simple and at the same time, monstrously difficult to understand. Just as we with great difficulty get used to the idea of relativity in physics, it is difficult for us, due to the habits of our psychologized culture, to master the idea that in fact we operate with a distinction within consciousness itself of two types of phenomena: 1) phenomena controlled and developed by consciousness and will (and in this sense, ideal constructive), and 2) phenomena, although acting in consciousness itself, but implicit in relation to it and uncontrollable by it (and in this sense uncontrolled by the subject and generally subjectless). We emphasize
Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev (February 5 (18), 1903, Moscow - January 21, 1979, ibid.) - Soviet psychologist, philosopher, teacher and organizer of science.
Dealt with problems general psychology (evolutionary development psyche; memory, attention, personality, etc.) and methodology psychological research... Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences (1940), full member APN RSFSR (1950), the first dean of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University.
Laureate of the KD Ushinsky medal (1953), the Lenin Prize (1963), the I degree Lomonosov Prize (1976), an honorary doctor of the Paris and Budapest universities. Honorary Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Born into a family of the Leontyevs. After graduating from the First real school (more precisely, "a single labor school"), Entered the faculty social sciences Moscow State University, which he graduated in 1923 [source not specified 1286 days] or 1924. Among his teachers of that time: G. I. Chelpanov and G. G. Shpet. After graduating from the university, he was left at the Psychological Institute to prepare for professorship, at which time he was dismissed from the post of director of the Institute's founder, GI Chelpanov. According to the recollections of his father, quoted by AA Leontiev, Chelpanov himself, who accepted Leontiev in his "graduate school", advised him to stay there after this shift. Among Leontiev's colleagues at the Institute during this period: N. A. Bernshtein, A. R. Luria, with whom several early studies were carried out, P. P. Blonsky, and later L. S. Vygotsky.
Since 1925, A. N. Leont'ev worked under Vygotsky's leadership on cultural-historical theory, more specifically, on the problems of the cultural development of memory. Reflecting these studies, the book "Development of Memory: An Experimental Study of Higher Psychological Functions" was published in 1931.
Since the end of 1931 - head of the department in the psychology sector of the Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy (until 1932 - the Ukrainian Psychoneurological Institute) in Kharkov.
1933-1938 - Head of the Department of the Kharkov Pedagogical Institute.
Since 1941 - as an employee of the Institute of Psychology - Professor of Moscow State University (since December 1941 in evacuation in Ashgabat).
1943 - headed the scientific department at the rehabilitation hospital (the village of Kourovka, Sverdlovsk region), from the end of 1943 - in Moscow.
Since 1951 - Head of the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University.
1966 - founds the Faculty of Psychology at Moscow State University and has been running it for over 12 years.
In 1976, a laboratory for the psychology of perception was opened, which operates to this day.
Books (12)
Movement recovery
Psychophysiological study of the restoration of hand functions after injury.
The classic work of A.N. Leontyev and A.V. Zaporozhets, which summarizes the results of research on the restoration of motor functions after injuries.
The study was carried out on the material of the clinical work of a team of psychologists (A.N. Leontiev, Zaporozhets, Halperin, Luria, M.S. Lebedinsky, Merlin, Gellerstein, S. Ya. Rubinstein, Ginevskaya, etc.) during the Great Patriotic War. Since its first publication in 1945, the book has not been reprinted in Russian. Translated to English language and published in 1960 as Rehabilitation of Hand Function. London: Pergamon Press, 1960.
Activity. Consciousness. Personality
"According to its composition, the book is divided into three parts. The first of them is formed by I and II chapters devoted to the analysis of the concept of reflection and the general contribution that Marxism makes to scientific psychology. These chapters serve as an introduction to its central part, which deals with the problems of activity. consciousness and personality.
Absolutely special place takes the last part books: it is not a continuation of the previous chapters, but is one of the author's early works on the psychology of consciousness. "
Selected psychological works. Volume 1
The volume contains works grouped into three thematic sections. The first section includes works from different years, reflecting the formation and development of the methodological foundations of modern Soviet psychology.
The second section includes two major works, which reveal the provisions on the emergence of mental reflection and its development in the process of phylogenesis before the birth of human consciousness. The third section contains works devoted to the study of mental development in the process of ontogenesis.
Selected psychological works. Volume 2
The second volume of works is divided into two thematic sections. The section "Functioning of various forms of mental reflection" includes works on experimental research various mental processes and human functions.
General Psychology Lectures
Processed transcripts of a course of lectures on general psychology delivered by A.N. Leontiev in 1973-75. at the Faculty of Psychology, Moscow State University. Published for the first time on the basis of tape recordings and typewritten transcripts from the archive of A.N. Leontiev. Psychologists, students of psychological specialties.
Mental development problems
The versatility and complexity of the problem of the development of the psyche requires that its development be carried out in many directions, in different plans and by different methods. The experimental and theoretical works published in this book express only one of the attempts to approach its solution.
The book contains three sections that illuminate the issues of the genesis and nature of sensations, the biological evolution of the psyche and its historical development, the theory of the development of the child's psyche.
Psychological issues of the consciousness of teaching
In the article "Psychological questions of the consciousness of teaching", published in 1947 and later included in a revised form in the book "Activity. Consciousness. Personality ", A.N. Leontyev put forward a number of propositions that reveal their heuristic potential in a special way in the current, changed cultural and historical situation; they turn with their new, previously hidden faces.
Among these provisions is proof that the problem of the consciousness of teaching should be considered primarily as a problem of the meaning that the knowledge assimilated by him acquires for a person. For learning to be carried out consciously, it must have a "life meaning" for the student.
Memory development
Loading...