Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin
RU EN






Today: 13.05.2025
Home Search
  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Bulletin Archive
    • 2025 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
    • 2024 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2023 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2022 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2021 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2020 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2019 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 2018 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
    • 2017 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2016 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2015 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2014 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2013 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2012 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2011 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2010 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2009 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2008 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2007 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
    • 2006 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2005 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2004 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2003 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
    • 2002 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2001 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
    • 2000 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 1999 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 1998 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 1997 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
  • Rating
  • Search
  • News
  • Editorial Board
  • Information for Authors
  • Review Procedure
  • Information for Readers
  • Editor’s Publisher Ethics
  • Contacts
  • Manuscript submission
  • Received articles
  • Accepted articles
  • Subscribe
  • Service Entrance
vestnik.tspu.ru
praxema.tspu.ru
ling.tspu.ru
npo.tspu.ru
edujournal.tspu.ru

TSPU Bulletin is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal.

E-LIBRARY (РИНЦ)
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
Google Scholar
European reference index for the humanities and the social sciences (erih plus)
Search by Author
- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
Яндекс.Метрика

Search

- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
  • - Not selected -

    #SearchDownloads
    1

    MATHEMATICAL FIGHTS AS PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS IN THE UNIVERSITY (TEACHING OF THE PROBABILITY THEORY AS EXAMPLE) // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2015. Issue 7 (160). P. 96-101

    In order to implement interactive teaching methods in the mathematical training of students examines the use of “fights” on the theory of probabilities. It is shown that compared with traditional forms of consideration and discussion of homework mathematical fights have several advantages: the emotional lift of participants, increased responsibility of each member of the team for the result, interest to complex tasks, the need for ongoing preparation for classes. Specific examples illustrate the progress of mathematical fights on the theme: “The classical definition of probability. Theorems of addition and multiplication of probabilities”. The variety of arising situations is demonstrated in terms of mathematical content and in terms of the psychology of the game.

    Keywords: interactive teaching methods, mathematical hight, probability theory

    1114
    2

    COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATIONAL METHODS ON THE EXAMPLE OF TEACHING THE PROBABILITY THEORY AND MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2017. Issue 4 (181). P. 49-56

    Teaching of mathematical disciplines in Russian universities has traditionally been based largely on the classic teaching methods (explanatory-illustrative and instructive-reproductive). Of course, the design of programmed instruction, as well as development of simulated and game methods of training is a very time consuming process. However, these training methods can dramatically improve the cognitive interest of students, their responsibility for the result, contribute to the development of skills both individual and collective work. (When using the programmed instruction the pace of learning is individual; in conducting the educational and business games we can develop the ability to act as a team). The effectiveness of innovative interactive methods (programmed instruction, “mathematical fights” and business games) requires not only logical basis, but also the statistical verification. The article studies the effect of the application of some interactive teaching technologies at the results of the students mastering the course of probability theory and mathematical statistics. The pedagogical experiment contained a comparison between one control group and two experimental groups in which these learning technologies were applied. The analysis was based on statistical hypothesis testing using t-test and Wilcoxon criterion. A marked increase in the knowledge quality associated with the use of innovative teaching methods and identified through the use of module-rating system, finds its confirmation in the results of the interim tests and final exam grade. The average exam score (on a 5-point scale) was as follows: 3.3 points for the control group and 3.45–3.6 points for the experimental groups.

    Keywords: interactive learning technology, module-rating system, control and evaluation activities, pedagogical experiment, statistical hypothesis testing

    1232

    © 2025 Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin

    Development and support: Network Project Laboratory TSPU