Intellectual game as a factor in the development of cognitive abilities in the learning process

The modern world constantly raises the question of participants and their role in the learning process. The increasing volume of information requires a special organization and stimulation of students, the development of special techniques, methods and techniques for learning the material, which in turn requires the teacher to work out new methods, appropriate and skillful inclusion of them into the learning process.

Within the framework of modern didactics, learning process is seen as a multifaceted process. If this process is viewed from the teaching and the teacher, then it is necessary to take into account the involvement and engagement of the very teacher. This is not just about those who "by vocation" are engaged in teaching activities, as well as those who are aware of the need for development, being in the education system itself.

Training in higher education depends on the nature of the interaction of all structures: joint activity of teachers, students, administration is carried out; all participants are engaged in organizing relevant events; the activity must comply with the state standards of education and achieve the goal including a profile orientation. All these characteristics are related to the favorable grounds for the formation of cognitive abilities as the basic ones in the learning process.

It would seem that cognitive abilities are properties inherent in all people as a biological species, which manifest themselves in the form of mental or verbal abilities.

Despite the fact that mastering, for example, the mother tongue begins early enough and depends on many factors, the cognitive abilities themselves can not reach completion in their development at some particular age, but, conversely, they can develop throughout the life of a person.

Undoubtedly, the peculiarity of the social world has an impact on the development of cognitive abilities. In the course of teaching activities, namely the teaching of humanities in higher education institutions over the past 15 years, there has been an increase in the percentage of those students who have problems with the ability to formulate conclusions, build cause and effect relationships and others. An intellectual game, conducted during the last four years, continues to please the results in solving problems related to the development of links between "thinking and speaking". The basis of intellectual gambling was brought in 2012 from Moscow State University as a game of philosophical cafe "Filosophskie Finiki" (Philosophical dates) or abbreviated "Fi-Fi". In the student's environment, the method of the game was transformed and the game itself is now positioned as "ARGUMENTARIUM". The fundamentals of the game were asked by Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Retyunskikh Larisa Timofeevna, based on the method of dialogue Socrates [Retyunskykh, 2003.].

Nowadays, the essence of the game "ARGUMENTARIUM" in Perm is a few circles of playing cards (5-7 rounds), where the total duration from 1 to 3 hours. On the cards are written notions of all humanitarian character, the total number of them is 88, in each circle the winner's card is determined according to the ability of argumentation, the one who has the fewest cards in his hand wins. As a method can be used in any discipline at the discretion of the instructor, the set (content of terminology and quantity) of cards can be compiled independently.

Main part

Consider this game form as one of the factors that affects the development of such abilities as to think and speak, or rather, to speak meaningfully. Many students note that they can not express their idea. The proposed methodology just allows to cope with this problem, but this is not the only plus that can be observed. Let's imagine the game form as a change of certain stages.

The way of submitting a material is, for example, the very declaration of a game affects the student's mind more like something entertaining. The game theory of Huizinga J. is remembered itself. "Every abstract expression is a speech image, every speech image is nothing but a play of words. Thus, mankind again and again creates its expression of being, the second, fictional world next to the world of nature"1. It is thanks to the verbal form that the very "human" world is created, that form of being that is the materialized world of human thoughts. Regardless of whether we share the definition of Huizinga J., that the game is the embodiment of life itself, or do not share, the proposed definitions of the game are only partially true and that the game always contains something more than certain characteristics2. However, consider what we are given a specific intellectual game for the development of cognitive abilities. In teaching the game form is used both as a way of cognition [Chernov R. P., 2001] and as a method of formation of creative and reflexive thinking. We join colleagues from Perm State National Research University, who are developing the technology “Soft skills”. Thanks to such methods, fully agreed with colleagues, it is possible to “counteract the tendency of young people without any reflection to accept or, on the contrary, to deny, any publicly expressed point of view” [Beresnev V. D., Beresneva N. I., 2018, p. 53.].

In the method of “ ARGUMENTARIUM” the stages of the game are interesting to correlate with the levels of cognitive immersion.

After the announcement of the game, the participants are automatically in a certain field — rules are set. Let us call this stage the setup stage, regardless of the sudden the teacher announced the game or prepared the audience in advance. As for cognitive abilities, than at this stage, the "attitude" to the game form is formed. The name "intellectual game" indicates the direction of the action, in this way it is attractive for the interested part of the audience, which tends toward this type of activity. For that part of the audience that has low motivation to participate in the game and they are "forced" to be on the game (holding by the teacher of the game during the classroom or "for company") they also differentiate the "announcement" as a game form, but they are not inspired with the emphasis on "intellectual". In the course of the game, such participants are a more significant example as they demonstrate not just a reluctance to participate, which is not always associated with fear of "public speaking". It is this part of the "undesirables" that demonstrate a poorly developed ability for abstract thinking or possess a weakly developed categorical apparatus, vocabulary. Such participants are more difficult on the first game, but if there is an awareness of the need to "fix the situation" then when removing the block in the form of the first misunderstanding effect, and if successful steps in the game give confidence, the next stages of the game are more valuable, because the participant realizes the possibility of his/her cognitive abilities, which the participant did not suspect. In fact, the game tends to be relatively entertaining. In the course of playing activity, there is a deep intellectual tension, but this is the next stage.

The second stage is called inclusiveness, where participants are included in the game process, which is directly related to the manifestation of a number of cognitive abilities. The start of the game is related to the reference text. It is worth pointing out that the starting line can be not only text, it can be a picture, a movie, depending on a number of technical reasons and the decision of the teacher as a moderator of the game. Consider the variant with the printed text — each participant has the text and the text should be read and analyzed. In some classrooms this stage passes like reading aloud by one sentence, paragraph by all the participants in turn. At this stage, the ability to perceive the whole text through the connection of sentences is actualized. If you look more closely, the basis is the ability to perceive words in according to their alphabetic composition — not even the perception itself, but the speed of perception. After reading the text, it is necessary to ask to it some problematic questions, which can not be answered unambiguously with "yes" or "no". Both in reading and in understanding the meaning of the reading, the ability to understand not only the printed text but also oral speech is included, there is a transition to verbal communication, where the ability to understand moves from text to speaker. Participants need to understand who speaks and understands what the one says about who answers the question "what is the meaning of the text".

The third stage can be considered a deep immersion, which is demonstrated by the participants of the game during the subsequent rounds of the game until the end of the game. In the course of this immersion, except the speed of perception, deep penetration into their own cognitive depths develops — the participants must defend their card reasonably, it is also a "notion", linking the original text in a limited frame — the rules of each circle are given certain parameters and time — an abbreviated original and logical answer is appreciated. This requires the manifestation of the ability to build either a general conclusion or a conclusion based on specific sets of words and their connections (induction). At the same time, the ability to deductive reasoning is manifested, where from general position it is necessary to come to confirming particular examples, premises. Briefly, this two-sided inductive and deductive relationship can be called the ability trace cause and effect relationships. This ability is valuable both in constructing the argumentation of one's answer, and in evaluating other participants. In the presence of a "floating jury", each participant during the game tries on the possibility of evaluating the answers of other participants, which involves additional abilities to match the proposed requirements i. e., it is necessary to trace the internal logic of the answer and the correspondence of this answer to external, specified requirements. At this stage, one more feature can be traced: deep dive, on the one hand, may seem that it detaches from reality (ascent from the concrete to the abstract), on the other hand — links with reality, helps to consider the versatility of being or a certain phenomena in the world (the ascent from the abstract to the specific).

Despite the "relatively entertaining" nature of the game, it requires concentration and requires certain knowledge — the basic necessary knowledge is related to the definition of the meaning of words, concepts, categories. The game in question implies rather open and trustful communication of all participants. In the course of the game, erudition, examples from other works or other studied disciplines or spheres of life are valued. If there is a difficulty in constructing the argumentation, it is possible to ask what value a term has for any participant, including the teacher, the possibility of using Internet resources, for example, dictionaries and encyclopedias, is not ruled out. In the case where the interpretation has several meanings or requires historical or etymological analysis to be taken into account, the instructor or the expert present from the participants himself takes on this advisory role. It is worth noting that it is at this stage of deep immersion that tension is removed, which is related not only to the entertaining aspect, but also to the depth of immersion in the detection of meanings in the course of arguments. It turns out that there is no room for fear and fear is replaced by intellectual euphoria from one's own cognitive abilities and abilities or from observation of logic in the answers of other participants.

The next stage of the game can be called a reflection - this is the winner's estimation, and the response of each participant. Constantly hear from players about the removal of tension during the game. Often the very excitement at the beginning of the game is associated with the participation of teachers on a par with students. But then this is not regarded as a controlling factor, but as possible support and assistance. During the game, participants each time see a variety of approaches to both the topic under study and the options for answering the question posed. From practice, we give as an example the "feedbacks" of students: "I didn't think it was so easy to answer", "at first, it seems that everything is simple, and then you understand how deep the topic is and how it can be turned", "you constantly learn something new", "generally I haven't thought that before", "you look at the cards and think about how their speaker will communicate their voice, and when you listen to the answer, you are surprised at the logic and ingenuity". Game moments gently force the participants to learn something new, some knowledge automatically has to deepen. Many say that after the game you have to look in the dictionaries or read and reread the works, which were referenced by one of the participants during the game. Some students are so caught that this transfers into a true research search.

There is an experience of writing articles by students and full time participation at conferences on the basis of those topics that were considered during this or that game. This method not only echoes the already mentioned “Soft skills” technology, introduced in 2015 in the curricula of the Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology of PSU through the course “Writing and Thinking” [Beresnev V. D., Beresneva N. I., 2018, p. 53.]. The fact is that in the course “Writing and thinking” writing the final work is mandatory. In the game “ARGUMENTARIUM” the expression of reflection is optional, only desirable. This of course is due to the fact that “ARGUMENTARIUM” is a game and it is not an obligatory discipline “by choice” and is positioned as “outside educational” activity. The choice is left to the student and, as it is recommended, can be manifested in independent work of the student on any creative project.

At the moment of reflection, there is an analysis of one's own cognitive abilities, in which uncertainty was often observed. This form of play enhances participants' self-esteem, while demonstra-ting the vastness of cognitive possibilities. If the game is planned and the original theme is known, the participants themselves note the need to get acquainted with the source material (text, film, picture, etc.). As the participants themselves note after the game, if the film is not watched (on the basis of which the game is based), it is not interesting and difficult to play, and often it is simply impossible. This, in turn, can be used by the teacher for unobtrusive motivation to perform both homework and study additional topics related to the study of discipline.

Given that the winner has the opportunity to choose a theme for the next game, it is worth noting one more specificity - "prolonged inclusiveness" is observed — this is "presence in the topic" of players from game to game. The winner has the right to determine the topic, and accordingly the form of submission of the source material (text, film, picture, etc.) for the next game. Students' proposals reflect their interests. Participants often ask at the beginning of the game how the choice of the topic was conditioned and the answer is precisely personal interest — the desire to understand, see the other sides and solutions to a particular problem. Students surprise with selected topics and this shows their interest, involvement in the analysis of current world events, social problems, psychological aspects of relationships, etc. According to the feedbacks of participants, you can keep track of how long they continue to reflect on the previous topic. In the course of reflection, unexpectedly a large number of participants regularly note the possibility of "being heard" as positive. Goodness and goodwill are noted in the course of the game — "they will not put a bad / low assessment", "nobody will scold you, what you said wrong", but on the contrary, participants feel support of each other, and the teacher as a specialist and professional who helps and prompting directs. I will turn again to the "feedbacks" of students: "they listen to me here", "I have the opportunity to express my opinion", "I know that I will not be laughed at if I say something wrong", "every time I say more confidently". Undoubtedly, it is important — awareness of one's own value and the importance of personal opinion, perhaps this is something that must be taken into account in our education system, starting with the pedagogical development of each teacher. This aspect leads to another component — the acceptance of another, as another way of thinking, as another possibility — of another answer. This creates a comfortable environment and tolerance for dissent in the broadest and most positive understanding of it. The game in this case forms the ability not only to listen, but to hear another person, even if the opinion does not coincide. Automatically this affects the formation of the flexibility of the mind, "living thinking".

All participants are limited to a certain set of cards, but during the games — even for the same text — a complete repetition was not — it emphasizes the uniqueness of the players, rather than the uniqueness of the method itself. Many participants note a positive "dependence" on this game and note that this game is the place where you want to come yourself, what you need, that is, an internal motivation for selfdevelopment of cognitive abilities develops.

In the course of this game form, participants form the skill of communication of thought operations with their verbalization, which requires both a special intellectual tension, and a tremulous cautious attitude to the word. There is a correlation between thinking and verbalization, for which it is necessary to expand both the volume of knowledge itself and vocabulary. This topic is in line with the problem of transsemiotic competences, thanks to which “it is possible to carry out access to other than language, areas of activity. The basic concept for consideration of translinguistic competences is the semiotic activity of a professional person, expressed in the processes of education and development of linguistic signs” [Mishlanova S. L., Alekseeva L. M. P. 84]. The search for access to other spaces through language is the major guidelines of development of pedagogy in the modern world, which deserves close attention and interdisciplinary cooperation.

Conclusion

In the course of the development of this game form, master classes on the transfer of this methodological basis have been held several times, and the teachers are willing to use the basic elements of this technology in their pedagogical and teaching practice. This game is growing, continuing to develop and finds the audience outside of educational institutions, but this is already the topic of another article, although the demand demonstrates the need for the public to develop their skills — logic, thinking, speaking. Currently, the game is used both as a method and as an independent "form of life" — reports, comments, reflections of participants, including students, can be viewed in the social network "VKontakte" in the group "ARGUMENT ARIUM PERM"1.

In this game form, the cognitive abilities of all participants develop and the teacher's participation can be narrowed, limited or reduced only to moderation. To create a favorable atmosphere for the game, the teacher needs confidence, tact, restraint, patience. As a moderator, the teacher can be included in the game when an expert estimation or demonstration of the opposite argument is needed, which the participants did not voice, but it is necessary to offer such a variant in the form of a clarifying question, excluding edification.

You can not ignore the fact that the teacher in this game, regardless of the scale of inclusion, also gets its bonuses — he or she also develops. Non-standard ways of constructing arguments, even inept options for students, allow to develop methodological techniques for the further development of discipline. During the game, participants, developing their thinking, demonstrate a variety of approaches in a live dialogue — this can not be learnt from books. In the proposed interpersonal communication, each participant feels unique. Each player has the opportunity to express himself, but also to replenish himself (his vocabulary, at least) thanks to others.

During the game, the source text is interpreted, with a very deep immersion in the meanings that the author intended and found by the participants in the game. This game practice contributes in a casual form to a qualitative penetration into the meanings of the text, develops argumentation skills that are a manifestation of the development of cognitive abilities