Scenario for a lesson on the history of Russia “Eastern Slavs” (based on the textbook by A.A. Danilov “History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 16th century”).
Lesson topic : East Slavs.
Class : 6
Item : __Story
Lesson type : discovery of new knowledge
Lesson Objectives : - formation of initial ideas about the peoples who inhabited our country in ancient times, places of settlement of the tribes of the Eastern Slavs, how natural conditions influenced the peculiarities of life of the Eastern Slavs.
Planned results:
Subject : students will learn to show on a map the territories of settlement of the Eastern Slavic tribes; distinguish between tribal and neighboring communities; highlight the main features of Slavic paganism.
Metasubject.
Cognitive: search for necessary information.
Communicative: they allow the possibility of people having different points of view, including those that do not coincide with his own.
Regulatory: act taking into account the guidelines identified by the teacher.
Personal : express their position at the level of a positive attitude towards educational process; show educational and cognitive interest in new material and ways to solve a new problem.
Basic Concepts : Slavs, rope, people's militia, paganism.
Lesson plan.
1. Origin and settlement of the Eastern Slavs.
2.Activities, beliefs.
3.Management.
Teaching methods : visual, partially search, practical, control.
Forms of training: individual, pair.
Organizational structure lesson.
Teacher activities
Student activities
UUD
I . Organizing time(motivation to educational activities)
Purpose of the stage: inclusion of students in activities on a personal level significant level
Greets students. Checks readiness for the lesson.
Creates conditions for students to develop an internal need for inclusion in educational activities and clarifies the thematic framework.
Conversation on questions:
Do you know who the ancestors of the Russian people were?
So, in today's lesson we are going to get to know our Slavic ancestors.
The topic of our lesson is “Eastern Slavs”.
Suggest what we can learn about this topic.
Greetings from the teachers. Getting ready for the lesson.
They answer the question. They express their opinion.
They express their opinion: what the Eastern Slavs did, where they lived, what they believed.
Self-determination, meaning formation(L)
Goal setting(P)
Planning educational cooperation(TO)
II . Learning new material.
A) Organizes students’ work with additional material(Annex 1).
Conversation on questions:
Who is Kiy?
By the 8th-9th centuries. There were ten East Slavic tribal unions on the territory of the East European Plain.
B) Organizes work with the map “Eastern Slavs at the end of the 1st millennium BC.” And the text of paragraph 1
§1.
Coordinates the work of students.
Checking whether the table is filled out correctly(Appendix 2).
C) We already know that nature and climate played an important role in people’s lives. Guess what the Eastern Slavs did?
Working with the text of paragraph 2 §1 (pp. 8-9) fill in the gaps in the diagram “Occupations of the Eastern Slavs”(Appendix 3).
Checking the completion of the task, summing up the results of studying the issue.
D) Organizes a conversation on the following questions: remember what religion is? Paganism?
Offers to view the presentation “Beliefs of the Eastern Slavs” and analyze it.
Shows presentation slides. Comments on new information.
D) In the 6th century, the Slavs lived in tribal communities. The main unit of society was the clan. Let's remember from the history course ancient world. What is a genus? The elders were at the head of the clan.
However, in the 7th-9th centuries. The clan community is being replaced by the neighborhood community.
The similarities and differences between the tribal and neighboring communities? How has the transition to a neighborhood community affected people's lives?
Thus, equality among the Slavs began to gradually disappear. In the tribal environment, nobility stands out - leaders, elders, rich warriors, in whose hands all the power and wealth of the tribe is gradually concentrated. Private property begins to emerge, i.e. the prerequisites for education are developingstates.
They work in pairs.
Read the text and answer questions.
Work with the map “Eastern Slavs at the end of the 1st millennium BC”, the text of paragraph 1 §1, fill out the table.
Tribe name
Places of resettlement
The teacher answers the question and puts forward versions.
Fill in the blanks in the diagram “Occupations of the Eastern Slavs.”
Answer questions.
Get to know new information, ask clarifying questions, discuss new information.
They define the concept of “clan” as a group of blood relatives who jointly owned land and forests, worked together and equally divided the results of their labor.
Determine the similarities and differences between tribal and neighboring communities.
Listen to the teacher's story.
Search and selection of information; synthesis as the composition of a whole from parts; subsuming the concept; putting forward hypotheses and their substantiation; independently creating a way to solve a search problem(P)
Argumentation of your opinion and position in communication; taking into account different opinions(TO)
II I . Primary consolidation
Purpose of the stage: speaking and consolidating new knowledge; identify gaps in the primary understanding of the studied material, misconceptions of the student; make a correction
Defines tasks, targets independent work, organizes control.
A) Establish a correspondence between the name of the tribe and the area where it lived.
Tribe name
The area where it lived
1) Drevlyans
A) Swamps
2) Dregovichi
B)Fields
3) Ilmen Slovenes
B) Forests
4)Polotsk residents
D) River Polota
5) Glades
D) The shores of Lake Ilmen
B) Choose the correct answer.
1. Verv is:
A) territorial (neighboring) community among the Eastern Slavs;
B) Place of worship of pagan gods;
C) The custom of blood feud.
2. The most important matters among the Eastern Slavs were decided by:
A) tribal rulers;
B) magicians;
B) evening- general advice
Checking the completion of tasks.
Complete tasks independently.
Evaluate their work.
They independently search for the necessary information.(P)
Expressing your thoughts with completeness and accuracy; formulating and arguing your opinion; taking into account different opinions(TO)
Assessment of learning content(L)
Control, correction, evaluation(R)
V .Lesson summary (activity reflection)
Purpose of the stage : students’ awareness of their educational activities, self-assessment of the results of their own and the entire class’s activities
- What topic did you study in class today?
What new did you learn?
Which question did you find most difficult?
Who did a good job today?
Exercise " solar circle"
Let's remember once again what was discussed in this topic. Draw the sun in the form of a circle with 4-5 rays, along each of the rays write one of the concepts discussed in this chapter. In the center of the circle, draw a person's face - smiling, thoughtful, expressionless or sad - depending on what mood you were in when you studied this topic.
They give answers to questions.
They evaluate their work in class.
Reflection on methods and conditions of action; control and evaluation of the process and results of activities(P)
Self-esteem; adequate understanding of the reasons for success or failure in DM; adherence to moral standards and ethical requirements in behavior(L)
Express your thoughts completely and accurately; formulating and justifying your opinion, taking into account different opinions(TO)
Lesson appendix
“There were three brothers,” says the chronicler Nestor in “The Tale of Bygone Years,” “Kiy, who sat on the mountain where Borichev now rises, and the second brother Shchek sat on a mountain called Shchekovitsa, and the third brother Khoriv - on Mount Khorivitsa. And they had a sister named Lybid.” The brothers built a town and named it Kiev after their older brother. There was a “forest and a great forest” around the city, and animals were caught in it. “And those men were wise and sensible and they were called Polyans, from them Polyans to this day in Kyiv.” According to legend, Prince Kiy traveled to Byzantium, to Constantinople (Constantinople), where the emperor gave him great honors. The agreement between Kyiv and the Byzantine Emperor Zeno has been preserved. On the way back, Kiy chose a place on the Danube, cut down a town there called Kievets and wanted to settle there with his family, but was expelled by the surrounding residents. Kiy returned to his city, where he died; his brothers and sister died here.
Questions to the text.
What have you learned about the early history of the Slavs from the chronicles?
Who is Kiy?
Appendix 2.
Fill out the table “Settlement of the Eastern Slavs.”
Tribe name
Place of settlement
Glade
The middle reaches of the Dnieper, around Kyiv.
Northerners
They lived north of the glades along the Desna and Sula rivers. The center of their lands was Chernigov.
Drevlyans
They lived northwest of Kyiv, on west bank Dnieper, along the course and tributaries of the Pripyat River. Their main city is Iskorosten.
Dregovichi
They settled between Pripyat and Dvina.
Ilmenskie Slovenes
They settled around Lake Ilmen. Their capital was the city of Novgorod.
Krivichi
They owned the Western Dvina River and built the city of Polotsk there.
Radimichi
We lived near the southern Krivichi. Their city is Lyubech.
Vyatichi
East of the Radimichi, in the dense forests along the Oka River, lived the Vyatichi tribe.
Volynians
West of the glades, on fertile lands between the upper reaches of the Bug and Southern Bug, flowing to the Baltic and Black Seas
Ulichi
South of the Volynians, between the Dniester and the Southern Bug.
Tivertsy
West of the streets, between the Dniester and the Prut.
Appendix 3.
Fill in the blanks in the diagram “Occupations of the Eastern Slavs.”Tools:
Pets:
Agricultural crops:
EDUCATIONAL AUTONOMOUS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
"VOLGA UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER V.N. TATISHCHEV" (INSTITUTE)
FACULTY OF SECONDARY PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
Open lesson summary
in history
Subject: "R Russian lands in the XII – XIII centuries. Feudal fragmentation in Rus': reasons, character traits political system of individual Russian lands, results and consequences »
Developed by:
General education teacher
disciplines of the department of OGiPD
Lukyanenko V.V.
Tolyatti, 2015
Developer: Lukyanenko V.V. teacher general education disciplines qualification category of the department “General education, humanitarian and legal disciplines”
Reviewed and approved at a meeting of the Department of OGiPD
Protocol No. ________ dated “___”____________2015
Head of the department ______________ /O.V.Shaikenova/
Lesson summary
Lesson topic:“Russian lands in the 12th-13th centuries. Feudal fragmentation in Rus': causes, characteristic features of the political system of individual Russian lands, results and consequences.”
Typeclasses: lesson on learning new material, practical lesson
The target audience: 1st year students
.Lesson duration: 80 minutes.
Lesson objectives:
1. educational - consolidate and expand students’ knowledge about the causes feudal fragmentation in Rus', to form their idea of the features political development individual lands and principalities in a given period, connect these features with the trends in the genesis of princely power and emerging alternatives of political development, as well as introduce high school students to historical assessments of both the consequences of fragmentation and the phenomenon itself as a whole;
2. developmental - continue to work on developing the ability to analyze historical events, find cause-and-effect relationships, and the ability to work with additional sources(encyclopedia materials), extract the information necessary to solve the problem, analyze it, draw intermediate and final conclusions and conclusions, record the data obtained in the form of a table; develop skills to work with visual aid(historical map); continue to develop research and communication skills, including the ability to work in a group, as well as the skills of taking notes on educational material (creating an individual OC);
3. educational – continue to instill in students a sense of patriotism and positive attitude to the history of Russia.
Teaching methods and forms of organizing educational activities in the classroom.
Methods– explanatory-illustrative, problematic, partially search;
Technologies- technology problem-based learning, block technology modular training, technology development critical thinking.
7. Plan for studying new material.
1. Prerequisites for the feudal fragmentation of Rus' (economic, socio-political, foreign policy).
2. Features of the development of Russian lands and principalities in the 12th-13th centuries (Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, “Mr. Velikiy Novgorod", Galicia-Volyn principality).
Results and consequences of feudal fragmentation.
7. Intrasubject connections: interdisciplinary connections, universal concepts humanitarian cycle.
Subject concepts (key terms).
An archbishop is the highest Orthodox clergyman. IN ancient Novgorod possessed significant power not only in church matters proper, but also in secular affairs (he monitored the standards of weights and measures, which was important for the trading population of the city, and sealed international treaties).
Veche - people's assembly in Rus' 10-14 centuries. Resolved major management issues in Novgorod and Pskov.
Old Russian nationality is a historically established community of people that arose and took shape during the period Kievan Rus and feudal fragmentation until Mongol times. Characterized by a common language, customs, culture, and religion. After the Tatar-Mongol conquest, the unity of the ethnic community was disrupted and three related nationalities developed from it: Russian (Great Russian), Belarusian, and Ukrainian.
The “laddered” order of succession to the throne is the order of succession to the throne, according to which power should be transferred to the eldest in the family.
Posadnik is the governor of the Kyiv prince in the lands under his control (10-11 centuries). In Novgorod and Pskov regions feudal republics(12-13 centuries) – highest public office, to which the veche elected noble boyars.
Tysyatsky - head of the city administration in ancient Novgorod (12-13 centuries). He was elected from the non-boyar population, dealt with tax matters, ruled over a commercial court, and conducted business with foreign merchants.
Feudal (political) fragmentation is a process of land fragmentation, characterized by the desire of feudal lords leading a patrimonial economy to become independent from the power of the Grand Duke. The chronological framework of feudal fragmentation in Rus' is 12th – 15th centuries.
The form of government is the organization of the highest power of the state, the competence, interaction of the highest bodies of the state, the degree of participation of the population in their formation.
Monarchy is a form of government in which power belongs to the monarch and is inherited by him.
A republic is a form of government in which government bodies are elected and the rights and freedoms of citizens of the state are respected.
Main dates:
1097 – Congress of princes in Lyubech (“let each one maintain his fatherland” is the first step on the path to fragmentation).
1113 – 1125 – Reign of Vladimir Monomakh.
1125 – 1132 – Reign of Mstislav the Great.
1132 – the beginning of the period of feudal fragmentation in Rus' (“the Russian land was torn apart”).
1125 – 1157 – The reign of Yuri Dolgoruky in Rostov-Suzdal land(from 1155 – Great Prince of Kyiv).
1136 – uprising in Novgorod. Expulsion of Vsevolod Mstislavich. The beginning of the republic in Novgorod.
1147 – the first mention of Moscow in the chronicle.
1153 – 1187 – Reign of Yaroslav Osmomysl in the Principality of Galicia.
1157 – 1174 – The reign of Andrei Bogolyubsky (strengthening the power of the prince).
1169 – Transfer of the capital from Kyiv to Vladimir by Andrei Bogolyubsky (creation of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality).
1176 – 1212 – Reign of Vsevolod Big Nest(policy of centralization of power of the Vladimir prince).
1170 – 1205 – Reign of Roman Mstislavich (unification of the Galician land and Volyn).
1221 – 1264 – Reign of Daniil Romanovich Galitsky.
Main personalities.
Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrey Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest, Yaroslav Osmomysl, Roman Mstislavovich, Daniil Romanovich Galitsky.
Literature for the lesson:
1. educational – Artemov V.V., Lubchenkov Yu.N. History for professions and specialties of technical, natural science, socio-economic profiles: 2 hours: textbook for students. institutions prof. education. - M., 2015.
2. reference – 1. encyclopedic Dictionary. Russian civilization. Ethnocultural and spiritual aspects. – M., 2001. 2. Encyclopedia for children. – M., Avanta+, 1995-1997. v.5.
3. additional – 1. Reader on the history of Russia/comp. A.S. Orlov. – M., 2001 2. B.A. Rybakov “The World of History. The initial centuries of Russian history." – M., 1987 3. Ancient Rus'//Motherland. – 2002. - No. 11-12.
Equipment for the lesson.
1. Textbook: Artemov V.V., Lubchenkov Yu.N. History for professions and specialties of technical, natural science, socio-economic profiles: 2 hours: textbook for students. institutions prof. education. - M., 2015.
2. Historical map “Russian lands and principalities in the 12th – early 13th centuries.”
3. Projector, multimedia presentation.
4. Information sheets for students (see Appendix).
Printed materials from the encyclopedia (see Appendix).
1. Organizational moment. Greetings.
2. Setting goals and objectives for the lesson. Update background knowledge students.
Our last lesson was devoted to the problems of education and development of the ancient Russian state of Kievan Rus. Today in class we will study new topic- “Feudal fragmentation in Rus'.”
During the lesson we have to solve 3 tasks: 1. Find out the reasons for feudal fragmentation; 2. Analyze the features of the development of Russian lands and principalities during this period; 3. Assess the consequences of feudal fragmentation.
During the lesson, we work with information sheets, creating our own individual reference summary. At home you can modify it, attract additional material. OK. will help you prepare homework, and in the next lesson I will give marks for taking notes.
During the lesson we must answer the following problematic issue. We will return to it towards the end of the lesson.
First let's give a definition. What is feudal fragmentation?
Write down the definition. Slide No. 1.
Slide number 2.
Slide No. 3 (problem task).
Slide number 4.
3.Stage of learning new material. Explanatory story.
Working with a historical map.
Teacher's explanation, organization group work. The group of students is divided into 3 parts, representing Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn principality and Novgorod land. The groups, in turn, are divided into subgroups of geographers, economists, political scientists, and international relations specialists.
So, let us turn to the reasons for feudal fragmentation. Let's try to think about it. Throughout the 11th – 12th centuries. we observe continuous struggle between the princes, leading to the gradual separation of lands and the division of Kievan Rus into “fatherlands”, which increasingly turned into independent states. One of the reasons for the internecine struggle was the next (“ladder”) order of succession to the throne. To stop the bloody strife, the Russian princes gathered at a congress in the city of Lyubech, where a decision was made historical importance: “Let everyone keep his fatherland,” which actually consolidated the power of the princes locally and was the first step towards the collapse of Kievan Rus. However, under Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav, the unity of Rus' was preserved. The Old Russian state finally collapsed in 1132, when Prince Mstislav died. But was it only princely feuds that led to the collapse Old Russian state? Is it a coincidence that even the most talented princes, such as Monomakh, managed to slow down this process only for a while, and then it inevitably resumed with new strength? After all, strife had happened before, but the result was different. Of course, before there were obstacles to the unity of the state. First of all, we should not forget that in the Middle Ages subsistence farming dominated.
What it is?
Indeed, with subsistence farming, everyday needs are satisfied not with purchased products, but with our own products. However, trade is irregular and economic ties between regions are fragile. This situation objectively hinders the preservation and development of the state. In addition, remnants of tribal isolation remained. However, all this - both natural economy and isolation - did not prevent the emergence of the Old Russian state in the 9th century and during three centuries did not lead to its disintegration. What changed in the 11th and 12th centuries? And this is what has changed. It was at this time that feudal land ownership began to take shape. Let's consider this phenomenon. Gradually, the prince’s warriors “settle” on the land, that is, they turn into landowners. And for them, the basis of economic well-being is no longer the tribute received through the prince, but income from land and the associated exploitation of peasants within the estate. Naturally, the warriors sought to be closer to their possessions. Previously, any warrior dreamed of moving along with his prince in the order of seniority to a more profitable “table”. Now the squad has become less mobile, it seems to have “settled” to the ground. Therefore, the princes began to think not only and not so much about advancing towards Kyiv, but first of all about strengthening their own principality. Thus, development feudal land tenure- this is the main reason for the fragmentation of the Old Russian state, its division into independent lands and principalities. This process was historically natural: Western Europe was going through the same stage of development. There were other reasons for fragmentation. For example, the growth of cities as economic centers. The single center - Kyiv - has been replaced by many new ones. However, a number of historians believe that the growth of cities is more likely a consequence of fragmentation rather than its cause.
Why do you think the collapse of the Old Russian state could contribute to the growth of cities?
Absolutely right. There is another important reason for the feudal fragmentation of Rus' - the weakening of Kyiv itself.
Why do you think this happened? Answer the question based on the geographical location of Kyiv.
Right. The population of Kyiv suffered from constant raids and fires. Gradually, people began to move to live in calmer forest and forest-steppe regions of Rus' (to the north and northeast), the outflow of population and the desolation of the southern lands began, which, of course, did not contribute to the development of Kyiv. Another reason for the weakening is the loss of relevance of former trade routes.
What ancient trade route passed along the Dnieper?
Indeed, this trade route was the basis economic ties with Byzantium. However, in the 12th century, Byzantium lost its position as a powerful power and would soon be conquered by the Ottoman Turks, who would block the old trade routes. Thus, the foreign policy component is present among the reasons for fragmentation.
(The teacher shows on the map the division of Kievan Rus).
Of the states that formed on the territory Ancient Rus', the largest and most significant were the Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal principalities and the Novgorod boyar republic. It was they who became the political heirs of Kievan Rus, that is, they were the centers of gravity of all all-Russian life. Each of these lands developed its own original political tradition and had its own political destiny. Each of these lands had the opportunity in the future to become the center of the unification of Russian lands.
(The teacher helps to correctly formulate the entry in the table, helps to summarize the information).
Question for final discussion: what alternatives to political development emerged during the period of feudal fragmentation?
Thus, we have found out the reasons for feudal fragmentation, examined how the development of individual lands and principalities proceeded, and now we will try to evaluate this phenomenon. Let's return to the problematic task that was posed at the beginning of the lesson and try to highlight the positive and negative aspects of feudal fragmentation.
So, let's conclude. Feudal fragmentation is a natural, objective and progressive stage in the development of society. Progressive - because fragmentation contributed to the development of feudal land ownership, the development of the economy (craft, construction, trade), the culture of Rus' became richer and more diverse, and new centers of chronicle writing emerged. With the onset of fragmentation, the connections between the Russian lands did not disappear (they were united by faith, language, general cultural traditions, and partly laws). However, feudal fragmentation was accompanied by princely strife; there was a practice of fragmenting principalities (the emergence of the so-called appanage principalities), there was a decrease in the overall defense capability of scattered lands and principalities. And this was fully manifested during the invasion of the Mongol-Tatar conquerors. They listen, take notes along the explanation, and answer the teacher’s questions if necessary.
They answer the question: subsistence farming is an economic system in which production is carried out not for sale, but “for oneself.”
Answer the question: Each prince wanted to create his own capital, make it economically strong, developed, cultural. This is how new cities began to emerge.
They answer the question: Perhaps its proximity to the steppe, to the southern border, played a fatal role in the weakening of Kyiv. This led to constant raids by nomads, especially in the 12th century.
They answer the question: “the path from the Varangians to the Greeks.”
They look at the map.
Students work in groups with the encyclopedia material, then each group gives answers to questions, the data obtained is presented in the form of a table.
Suggested answer:
In Novgorod we clearly observe a trend towards a republican form of government, i.e. a form of government in which government bodies are elected. The Vladimir-Suzdal and Galician-Volyn principalities are an example of monarchical power, i.e. a form of government in which power belongs to one person and is inherited. In Vladimir, the monarchy strives to be unlimited, but in the Galicia-Volyn principality, the power of the prince is limited by the strong boyars.
Write down conclusions in notes.
Slide number 5.
Slide number 6.
Slide number 7.
Slide No. 8 (gradually, as we consider, the reasons for fragmentation appear).
Slide No. 9 (map).
Slide No. 10 (table).
Slide No. 11 – 12.
Slide number 13.
Slide No. 14 (main conclusions).
4. The stage of consolidating the acquired knowledge.
Express survey for students:
1.What is feudal fragmentation? Explain the essence of the phenomenon.
2. Name the date of the beginning of feudal fragmentation in Rus'.
3. Name the main reason for fragmentation in Rus'.
4. Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrey Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod Big Nest. On what principle is the series formed?
5. Veche, mayor, thousand, archbishop. On what principle is the series formed?
Answer the teacher's questions.
Reflection (students’ awareness of their activities).
What did we do in class today?
What have you learned?
Which part of the lesson did you like best?
What new did you learn about your comrades?
What mistakes (if any) prevented you from achieving the desired result?
I evaluate the work of students, trying to note the positive results of their activities and carefully point out shortcomings.
Homework: Create a crossword puzzle on the topic “Fragmentation in Rus'” using the website http://rushist.narod.ru/files/saint_work/krswrd/2.htm; individual assignments for the next lesson: prepare a message-presentation on the topic “Culture of Kievan Rus” (“Architecture”, “Writing, literacy, schools.”)
New social demands reflected in the Federal State Educational Standard define the main goal of education as general cultural, personal and cognitive development students, providing such a key competency of education as “teaching how to learn.”
How to structure Russian language and literature lessons in order to implement the requirements of the Second Generation Standards? To do this, you need to know the criteria for the effectiveness of a lesson, the requirements for its preparation and delivery, analysis and self-analysis of the activities of the teacher and students.
It is known that, along with common approaches to planning lessons in all subjects (thought-out goals and objectives; best practices, techniques and forms of working with the class; proper use of new pedagogical technologies, including ICT; cooperation between teacher and student, based on problem-search forms of work, etc.) the teaching of each subject has its own specifics, its own characteristics. In the context of the introduction of the Federal State Educational Standard for basic general education, it is becoming increasingly relevant in school education The problem of an activity model of a lesson, containing certain structural and content stages, acquires.
Concerningliterature lessons , then the requirements for their construction are, in principle, not outdated: the trinity of goals (teaching, developing and educating) is a mandatory component of any lesson, including a literature lesson. However, modern reality makes its own adjustments to the methodology of teaching literature. To make the lesson interesting for children, the teacher has to master new methods of presenting material, use non-standard techniques and innovative technologies in his practice.
When analyzing the story “Heart of a Dog” by M. Bulgakov, I used materials from the book “The Path to Bulgakov” by T.V. Ryzhkova.
Literature lesson notes based on M.A. Bulgakov’s story “Heart of a Dog”
Lesson objectives:
1. Educational: conducting compositional and stylistic analysis text of the story; comparison of the images of Sharik and Sharikov; comprehension of the author's concept.
2. Developmental: developing the skill of working with literary text; development of skills to characterize the characters of the story; improving group skills and independent work; improving logical and creative thinking.
3. Educational: understanding what education and self-education means, culture, traditions in the life and fate of a person and society; formation of a value system.
Forms of work: collective, group, individual
Lesson type: discovery of new knowledge
Lesson No. 1 Dispute about a dog's heart.
Purpose of the stage : inclusion of students in activities at a personally significant level.
Creating a setup for analyzing a work.
Slide 1 (portrait of the writer, title of the story)
Teacher's word .
For today's lesson, you read M. Bulgakov's story “The Heart of a Dog.”
March 1925. Mikhail Bulgakov is finishing work on the satirical story “The Heart of a Dog.” He wrote it at the request of the Nedra magazine. But the story came to the reader in our country only in 1987...
Slide 2
How do you think,Why was the story, written in 1925, published in Russia only in 1987? What was there in this story that the government of the Soviet Union did not like?
Students make assumptions (forbidden to publish because the story is a satire on modernity)
Teacher: Really, Soviet era persecuted dissent, and even from high stands it was said ironically:“We are for laughter, but we need kinder Shchedrins and such Gogols so that they don’t bother us.” Bulgakov's view of modernity was very sharp, satirical attacks were considered seditious. M.A Bulgakov wrote:
Slide 3: “On the wide field of Russian literature in the USSR, I was alone - the only literary wolf. I was advised to dye the skin. Ridiculous advice. Whether a wolf is dyed or shorn, it still doesn’t look like a poodle.” The famous critic, researcher of the writer’s work Vsevolod Ivanovich Sakharov (born in 1946, member of the Union of Writers of Russia, Doctor of Philology) gave the following assessment of the story:
Slide 4:
“Heart of a Dog” is a masterpiece of Bulgakov’s satire.
Bulgakov’s satire is smart and sighted.” V. Sakharov
These words will become the epigraph for today's lesson.
Choose a contextual synonym for the wordsighted.
Students: (honest )
UUD: personal, meaning formation
Stage 2 Updating knowledge
Purpose of the stage
Consolidating the concept of satire, overcoming ambiguity in the perception of characters and events.
Teacher: Indeed, satire is always honest, but rarely permitted. Let's remember what satire is.What is satire directed against? What is the source of satire?
Students' answers
Teacher opens the slide, students check their answers with the correct one
Slide number 5.
(Satire - kind of comic. Subject of satire serve human vices.
Source of satire - a contradiction between universal human values and the reality of life.)
Let's try to figure out what human vices and contradictions between universal human values and real life became the subject of M. Bulgakov's satire.
UUD: educational
Stage 3 Setting a learning task
The purpose of the stage: setting goals for educational activities, choosing the means of achieving them.
Teacher : The story was considered seditious in 1925 and banned.
However, in 1988, the film “Heart of a Dog” directed by V. Bortko was released, which viewers still enjoy watching, and theaters continue to stage performances based on Bulgakov’s story.
Why does the story attract film and theater directors?
Students: Suggested answers:
The story is very modern. Our time and Bulgakov's time are similar.
Teacher: So, the story is relevant in our time, which is why it is read, films are made and plays are staged in theaters. Let's assume that the problems that worried the writer are not indifferent to us. What are these problems?
Students: Suggested answers:
The Sharikovs live among us, and the writer warned how dangerous they are.
Animals are now being cloned and there is talk of human cloning.
Teacher: Maybe you're right. Let's try to figure it out.
Modeling a problem situation and approaching the lesson problem.
Include movie clip from the film “Heart of a Dog” directed by V. Bortko, where Bormental argues with Professor Preobrazhensky.
What do you think the topic of today's lesson will be?
Students.
Suggested answers: the dog's heart debate.
Teacher: Write down the topic of the lesson: “Dispute about a dog’s heart.”
Let's think about what main problem Should you and I decide in class?
Students. Who is right: Doctor Bormental, who believes that Sharikov has a dog’s heart, or Professor Preobrazhensky, who claims that Sharikov “has exactly a human heart”?
Teacher: Can we answer this question right away?
No.
What goals of our future actions do we need to identify in order to answer this problematic question?
Students.
Analyze the text and compare the images of Sharik and Sharikov.
Understand what answer the author of the story would give to this question, what the author thought, what worried him.
UUD: regulatory (goal setting, planning); communicative
(ability to listen, engage in dialogue)
Stage 4 Construction of a project to overcome difficulties
Purpose of the stage
Analytical conversation.
a) The technique of “immersion in the text.”
Teacher: The story opens with paintings of Moscow in the mid-20s. Imagine and describe Moscow. Through whose eyes do we see life?
Students: a city where wind, blizzard and snow reign, where embittered people live. It will help to concretize the general picture by turning to the details of the text, which could confirm the students’ impressions (the normal food canteen and bar, the fate of the “typist” and her lover, the cook and the doorman, the history of the Kalabukhovsky house).
Teacher: Is there anything in the story that counters this chaos and hatred?Students : rasskhabout Philip Philipovich’s apartment, where comfort, order, and human relationships reign.Butthis life is under threat because the house committee, headed by Shvonder, seeks to destroy it, to remake it according to its own laws.
Teacher: What connects these two worlds?
Students: This is Sharik, who was picked up by Professor Preobrazhensky. Thanks to Philip Philipovich, the dog was transported from the world of hunger and suffering, a world that doomed him to death, into a world of warmth and light.
Teacher: M. Bulgakov continued the traditions of Russian satirists M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and N.V. Gogol. Bulgakov took the topical sound from Saltykov-Shchedrin, and from N. Gogol - his teacher, the fantastic nature of the plot, images and even compositional structure works.While doing your homework, you should have observed the composition of the story.What is the composition of the story?
b) Students present a presentation prepared at home , in which the story is clearly divided into two parts
part 2 | |
Chapter 1 The world through the eyes of a dog, meeting a professor, choosing a name. Chapter 2 Sharik in the house on Prechistenka: “dressing”, receiving patients, visiting the house committee Chapter 3 Sharik in the house on Prechistenka: lunch, “explanation” of the owl, “collar”, kitchen, preparation for the operation. Chapter 4 Operation. | 5 ch. Diary of Doctor Bormenthal: transformation. Chapter 6 Sharikov in the house on Prechistenka: the professor’s conversation with Sharikov, choice of name, Shvonder’s visit, “clarification” of the cat. Chapter 7 Sharikov in the house on Prechistenka: lunch, reflections of the professor. Chapter 8 Sharikov in the house on Prechistenka: registration, theft, drunkenness, the professor’s conversation with Bormental (searching for a way out), “attempt on Zina.” Chapter 9 Disappearance of Sharikov, Sharikov and the “typist”, denunciation of the professor, operation Epilogue: “presentation” of Sharikov, Sharik after the operation, the professor at work. |
(The composition is symmetrical. Ring composition: The ball again became a dog.)
Teacher: what arethe reasons for this construction of the work?
Students conclude: the mirror composition of the story emphasizes the changes taking place in the professor’s house and in the people inhabiting it. The conclusion is written down in a notebook.
c) “verbal drawing” technique
Teacher : so, Bulgakov gives many events of the first part through the eyes of a dog, perhaps in order tocompare Sharik and Sharikov. Imagine that you are making illustrations for a story. How would you depict the meeting between the dog and the professor? What should you do to draw an oral illustration more accurately?
Students : necessaryreread chapter 1 . Re-read, clarify details. Possible description:
In the foreground there is a dark gateway, a blizzard is snaking. In the distance we see from a gateway a street, a brightly lit store and a piece of a poster blown by the wind. A man in a dark coat has just left the store, he is moving towards the gateway in the “pillar of a blizzard”. A dog is crawling into the street in the gateway. This is a tattered mongrel, she has dirty matted fur and a terrible scalded side. It is clear that movement is given to the dog with great difficulty. His head is raised, he is watching the person walking towards him.
Teacher: — Which qualities of Sharik do you like and which do you not?
Students : intelligence, wit, observation, irony, hatred of proletarians, janitors and doormen; the ability to both sympathize and hate, lackey servility.
UUD: cognitive - general educational (semantic reading, information search), logical (analysis, classification, selection of bases for comparison); personal (moral and aesthetic assessment); communicative.
Stage 5 Independent work
Purpose of the stage: improving the skills of independent work and the ability to build cooperation in a group.
Students work in groups (independent text analysis). Execution time – 5-8 minutes. Each group prepares a speaker; response time is 2 minutes.
Group I , analyzing chapters 1-3, should answer the question:
— What does Sharik notice in the reality around him and how does he react to it?
2nd group , analyzing chapters 2-3, answers the question:
— What does Sharik like about Professor Preobrazhensky’s house and what doesn’t?
3 group , working with the same chapters, prepares an answer to the question:
— How does the dog perceive the inhabitants of the apartment?
4 group (same chapters):
How do the residents of the apartment feel about Sharik?
5 group (same chapters):
Students (preferred answers):
Group I:
— The dog is very observant, he knows life well, especially what is connected with nutrition. He knows that the world is divided into hungry and well-fed. The one who is “eternally full” is “not afraid of anyone”, therefore “he will not kick.” Hungry people, those who “are afraid of everything themselves,” are dangerous. Sharik hates lackeys. He says that “human cleansing is the lowest category.” But he also sympathizes with people who are deceived and bullied by those who have recently gained power.
Group II:
“Sharik likes it in the professor’s house, although after seeing patients he calls the apartment “obscene.” But it is warm and calm. After Philip Philipovich’s conversation with Shvonder, Sharik becomes convinced that the professor has great power. Sharik decides that he will be completely safe here: “Well, now you can beat me as much as you want, but I won’t leave here.” The dog also likes the fact that in the house he is fed well and tasty, and is not beaten. The only thing that annoys him is the owl. The dog is afraid of hunger and evil people, but in the house it’s the other way around. Sharik’s favorite place is the kitchen: food is prepared there, and there is a fire there.
III group:
- After Sharik realized that in the professor’s house he had nothing and no one to fear, since his owner was not afraid of anyone, he decided that the professor was “a wizard, magician and magician from a dog’s fairy tale.” During lunch, Philip Philipovich finally received the title of deity. As already mentioned, food, warmth and safety are the main thing for Sharik, and he is ready to faithfully serve the one who gives it to him. Sharik studied the professor’s call and greeted him with a bark.
He quickly won over Daria Petrovna, the cook. The kitchen is “the main part of heaven” for Sharik. And so he sucks up to the cook. He treats Zina with disdain, calling her “Zinka”; he doesn’t love her because she scolds him all the time and says that “he ate the whole house.” The dog calls Dr. Bormenthal “bitten” and does not communicate with him at all.
IV group:
- Professor Preobrazhensky generally feels sorry for Sharik: he orders him to be fed properly, saying that “the poor fellow is hungry”; he treats him kindly because he believes that affection is “the only way to treat a living being”; he never hits Sharik, even when he “clarified” the owl. For Zina, Sharik is the reason for the eternal chaos in the house. She thinks that the professor is spoiling Sharik too much and offers to give the dog a beating. She doesn’t understand why Sharik is shown such courtesy. For her, he is an ordinary mongrel. And Daria Petrovna at first called Sharik a “homeless pickpocket” and did not let him into the kitchen, but the dog “won her heart.”
Teacher: What is the value system of an unusual dog?
Students : The main things for Sharik are food, warmth and safety. This is what determines his attitude towards people. In general, he “sells his soul” for a piece of Krakow sausage. Sharik’s attitude towards people is determined by the same thing: the professor is the master, and Sharik is ready to please him, Daria Petrovna is the “queen of the kitchen,” the dog fawns on her, Zina is a servant in the house, and Sharik believes that she should serve him too. Dr. Bormenthal is in no way connected in the dog’s mind with food and warmth, and since the bite of his leg went unpunished, the doctor simply turns into a “bite.”
Teacher : Do you like this philosophy of life? Why? What word would you call it?
Students : Slave
Group V identified the stages of change in Sharik:
- Firstly, Sharik has changed in appearance. The professor picked up a dying dog, with a scalded side, dirty matted fur, and emaciated from hunger. In a week he turned into a shaggy and “surprisingly fat” “handsome dog.” Secondly, he changed internally: at first he was worried: “Why did the professor need me?” (his experience told him that no one does anything for nothing). Having just got into the house, he thought that he found himself in a “dog hospital” and defended his life - he has a very developed instinct of self-preservation. But seeing that he is not in danger, but, on the contrary, is being fed and caressed, Sharik begins to be afraid of losing all this and thinks: “Beat him, just don’t kick him out of the apartment.” He decides that Philip Philipovich chose him for his beauty. He will become impudent before our eyes. Having quickly assessed the collar, because all the dogs he meets are madly jealous of it, he comes to the conclusion that the collar is a kind of pass to better world and gives him certain rights, for example, to lie in the kitchen. He forgets that he was recently an ordinary homeless mongrel, and no longer doubts that nothing will deprive him of warmth and food, and is finally convinced that he is an “incognito dog prince.” He exchanged a hungry and dangerous freedom for a well-fed one, quiet life, and pride - into lackey servility.
Teacher : What associations does the dog’s story evoke in you?
Students : Suggested answers:
After the revolution, many people who lived in poverty and hunger reached out for a warm and well-fed life, believed many promises, and decided that they would instantly “become everything.” The revolution is an experiment that the Bolsheviks carried out on the entire people.
UUD: cognitive (search for information, ability to construct a speech statement); communicative (the ability to cooperate in a group, enter into dialogue), personal (knowledge of moral standards and the ability to highlight the moral aspect of behavior)
Stage 6 Reflection
Purpose of the stage: students’ self-assessment of the results of their educational activities
Let's summarize the lesson:
Teacher : Has your attitude towards the ball changed? How? Why? (This is a written question.)
Students conclude:
Sharik’s inner speech, his assessment of events, reflections, together with the author’s description of his behavior, create a complete picture for the reader inner world dog.
Teacher :
— Have we answered the problematic question of the lesson: who is right: Doctor Bormental, who believes that Sharikov has a dog’s heart, or Professor Preobrazhensky, who claims that Sharikov “has exactly a human heart”?
Students: - No.
Teacher: - What questions did we get the answer to?
Students: — We compared the images of Sharik and Sharikov, saw what changes had occurred, understood through what techniques the author expressed his attitude towards the character and what worried him.
Teacher: The next lesson will be the next step in resolving the problem situation that we identified in this lesson, and for this you must work on your homework questions. What questions would you like to ask me or your classmates?
UUD: regulatory (assessment), personal (self-determination), cognitive (problem solving), communicative (ability to participate in collective discussion)
Homework:
1. Highlight the stages of Sharik’s transformation into Sharikov and the stages of Sharikov’s formation by preparing an electronic presentation (assignment for the whole class).
2. Compare the behavior of Sharik and Sharikov in episodes of parts I and II: choosing a name (individual task), lunch (individual), visiting the apartment by the house committee (individual).
3. What do you think is from the dog in Sharikov, what is from Chugunkin? Justify your opinion with examples from the text (general task).
4. What is Shvonder’s role in Sharikov’s upbringing? Why does Professor Preobrazhensky say that “Shvonder is the biggest fool”? ( Individual task, it is performed by 3-4 people.)
Lesson #2
Topic: Dispute about a dog's heart (continued)
Stage 1 Motivation for learning activities
Purpose of the stage : inclusion of students in activities at a personally significant level. Create a setup for analyzing the work.
Watching a fragment of the film “The transformation of Sharik into Sharikov” , an excerpt from the film adaptation of the story directed by Bortko.
Teacher : before we respond to key question, think about why M. Bulgakov needed to introduce into the story, to make the transformation of a dog into a man the spring of intrigue. If in Sharikov only the qualities of Klim Chugunkin are manifested, then why shouldn’t the author “resurrect” Klim himself? However, before our eyes, the “gray-haired Faust”, busy searching for means to restore youth, does not create a man in a test tube, does not resurrect him from the dead, but turns a dog into a man.
Stage 2 Updating knowledge
Purpose of the stage : preparing students’ thinking, their awareness of the internal need to build educational activities and fixing an individual difficulty in each of them.
Teacher : Find it difficult to answer?
I remind you of Dr. Bormenthal’s diary (I am exacerbating the problematic situation with an additional question):
Why is it Dr. Bormental who keeps the diary, and not Professor Preobrazhensky?
Search activity students are looking for real explanations:
“We can see from the records how excited the doctor is.” At first he rejoices at the success of the operation and the new discovery. Then he is horrified by what the apartment has become. He admits that he doesn’t understand much.
- Philip Philipovich has no time to keep a diary, he is much busier than the doctor... After all, it is no coincidence that the professor needs an assistant, that is, an assistant. Then Philip Philipovich, much less than Bormental, realized that the new creature was related to Klim. Bulgakov does not want to solve the riddle ahead of time - we also don’t know anything about Klim. But if the diary was kept by a professor, it would not be so interesting.
— Dr. Bormenthal puts forward his hypothesis in his diary: “Sharik’s brain in the dog period of his life accumulated an abyss of concepts,” and, of course, writes down not only his assumptions on this matter, but also the professor’s opinion. But the professor would not write down Bormenthal’s hypothesis, since he is absolutely confident that he is right. And there wouldn't be any problem. We would also believe the professor, but there are some doubts
Students together with the teacher come to the conclusion:
- The “elimination” of the author and the transfer of the narrative to a young scientist who does not have the experience and insight of his teacher, who harbors bright hopes for the result of the experiment, create a new and at the same time central opposition to the story (what is Sharikov - a dog that has changed its external form or the “resurrected” Klim? ), strengthen reader interest, keep him in suspense, giving him the opportunity to make his own guesses about the events and results of the operation.
Checking homework.
Demonstration of an electronic presentation with the results of the task: Highlight the stages of Sharik’s transformation into Sharikov and the stages of Sharikov’s formation.
(swearing (“all the swear words that exist in the Russian lexicon”);
smoking;
sunflower seeds (uncleanliness);
balalaika at any time of the day or night (disregard for others);
vulgarity in dress and behavior;
immorality;
drunkenness;
theft;
denunciation;
assassination attempt.)
The list is corrected, and the following conclusion is drawn together with the teacher:The formation of a “new man” is a loss of humanity, an increase in immorality, that is, not evolution, but degradation.
Checking individual assignments.
Compare the behavior of Sharik and Sharikov in similar situations. (One student shares his observations with classmates, others complement him if necessary. No more than 2 minutes are allotted for the message, about which the guys are warned in advance). Suggested answer:
— The dog was first called "ball" by a typist. The dog himself does not agree with this name: “Sharik means round, well-fed, stupid, eats oatmeal, the son of noble parents,” and he is “shaggy, lanky and ragged, a lean little gang, a homeless dog.” For the second time with a ballThe dog is called Philip Philipovich, probably because it is a common dog name: Sharik, Tuzik... And the dog accepts this name: “Call it what you want. For such an exceptional act of yours (for the sausage). He doesn't really care what they call him, as long as they feed him.
— The “laboratory creature” demands a document from Flip Filippovich for himself. Then the question of his name arises. Now the name is chosen not by the “creators” of the new creature, but by the creature itself, but on the advice of the house committee. New power brings new names into the world. For Philip Philipovich, the name Poligraf Poligrafovich sounds wild, “but the laboratory creature” defends its rights. Most likely, students will not notice the parodic roll call - let us draw their attention to some similarities between the names of Sharikov and his creator, which consists in duplicating the name itself with a patronymic. Sharikov creates his name on the advice of the house committee, but by analogy with the name of “dad”.
“After the first dinner at the professor’s house, Sharik promoted him to the rank of “highest deity.” The dog's head is dizzy from various smells. He, of course, hears what the professor and the doctor are talking about, but the main thing for him is food. When he had eaten too much, he dozed off. He feels good and calm now. The “dog’s respect” for the professor is growing all the time and is not in doubt. The only thing that worries Sharik is whether this is all a dream.
For Sharikov, lunch, on the one hand, is an opportunity not only to eat deliciously and a lot, but also to drink. and on the other hand, it is torture: he is taught and educated all the time. And if Sharik respects Philip Philipovich, then Sharikov seems to laugh at him. He says that the professor and the doctor are “tormenting themselves” with some stupid rules. He does not at all want to become cultured and behave decently, but he is forced to do this, because otherwise he will not be allowed to eat (this is how animals are trained in the circus!). Sharik sat at the professor’s feet and did not bother anyone, only Zina was angry, and Sharikov was a stranger at this table. Bulgakov writes that “Sharikov’s black head sat in the napkin like a fly in sour cream” - both funny and disgusting. Sharikov and the professor exchange all the time sideways glances.
UUD: cognitive (process, systematize information and present it in different ways, the ability to construct a speech statement, the ability to analyze and draw conclusions); personal (meaning formation); communicative (ability to listen, enter into dialogue).
Stage 3 Construction of a project to overcome difficulties
Purpose of the stage : students’ choice of a way to resolve a problem situation.
Improving the ability to conduct compositional analysis of a text, activating students’ imagination and attention to the details of the text through verbal drawing, developing the ability to characterize a hero and give a moral assessment of his actions.
Characteristics of Sharikov.
Watching an excerpt from a movie directed by V. Bortko “Heart of a Dog” - an episode of a conversation between Sharikov and Philip Philipovich. (In Bulgakov, the corresponding fragment begins with the words: “Philip Philipovich was sitting in a chair at the table.”)
Analytical conversation.
Teacher : compare the image of Sharikov, created by the actor and director in the film, with Bulgakov’s description.
— Is this how Sharikov seemed to you when you read the story?
— What did the filmmakers keep and what did they “forget”?
Suggested Answers :
— outwardly Sharikov in the film is exactly the same as Bulgakov’s, that the actor plays his role very talentedly, but the film is not in color. Maybe the authors decided to do this because the dog does not have color vision. But Bulgakov’s Sharik could distinguish colors. The story says: “Sharik began to learn by colors.” The lack of color in the film did not allow the authors to convey the absurdity of Sharikov’s costume.
— In the film, Sharikov constantly makes excuses, you even feel sorry for him. Indeed, the professor attacks and attacks him. And in the book, Sharikov behaves confidently, and sometimes harshly: he does not make excuses, but attacks himself: “A bold expression lit up in the little man.”
Bulgakov's Sharikov is often ironic, but in the film he is stupid. And also, when you read the story, it’s funny, but in the film everything is somehow serious. It's hard to explain why this is so.
(if students do not see this important detail, the teacher can lead them to it additional questions. The “claims” of the students are weighty and thorough: they caught the stylistic and semantic discrepancy between V. Bortko’s interpretation and Bulgakov’s text. The film really lacks color, and the point is not only that it is black and white, but that the entire film is shot in a serious and very boring way: it lacks Bulgakov’s irony, humor, sarcasm - shades of meaning!
What did Sharikov inherit from Klim Chugunkin? What do we know about Klim from the text of the story?
3) Working with a block diagram.
The great operation was completed, but who became the donor to create a new person?
(Klim Chugunkin)
What can you say about this person? Read it.(end of chapter 5, p. 199)
(“Klim Grigoryevich Chugunkin, 25 years old, single. Non-party member, single, tried three times and acquitted: the first time due to lack of evidence, the second time the origin saved, the third time - suspended hard labor for 15 years. Thefts. Profession - playing the balalaika in taverns.
Small in stature, poorly built. The liver is dilated (alcohol). The cause of death is a stab in the heart in a pub (“Stop Signal” at the Preobrazhenskaya outpost).
From Doctor Bormental's diary we learn that the new creature has adopted all the worst qualities of its donors (Sharik and Klim Chugunkin). Find and read the description of the new creature.
( Bad taste in clothes: a poisonous sky-colored tie, jacket and trousers are torn and dirty; patent leather boots with white leggings. Ch.6, p.203)
In addition, it constantly speaks after its mother, smokes, litters cigarette butts, catches fleas, steals, loves alcohol, is greedy for women...(p. 194, 195)
Teacher: but that's just external manifestation. Is there anything left of Sharik's moral position? What determined Sharik’s behavior and what was most important for Sharikov?
Suggested Answers : - The instinct of self-preservation. And Sharikov defends the right to his own existence. If someone tried to take Sharik’s “full life” away, he would recognize the power of a dog’s teeth. Sharikov also “bites”, only his bites are much more dangerous.
Conclusion: the ball did not die in Sharikov: we discovered all its unpleasant qualities in the person.
Conversation
Teacher : Let's try to figure out why the professor was a model and strength for Sharik, and Shvonder for Sharikov? Why does the professor say that “Shvonder is the biggest fool”? Does he understand who he is dealing with?
Students: Sharikov’s brain is very poorly developed: what was almost brilliant for a dog is primitive for a person: Sharik turned into a person, but did not receive human experience.Shvonder takes him for a normal adult and tries to instill the ideas of Bolshevism.
Teacher: Why is this so dangerous?
Students: Usually, when a person develops naturally, he gradually gets acquainted with the world, they explain to him what is good and what is bad, they teach him, and pass on the accumulated experience and knowledge. The more a person learns, the more he can understand on his own. But Sharikov knows practically nothing: he just wants to eat, drink and have fun. Shvonder indulges him, talking about rights, about the need to divide everything. Shvonder himself fervently believes in what he preaches; he himself is ready to give up benefits and conveniences in the name of a bright communist future.
Philip Philipovich and Doctor Bormental are trying to educate and instill in Sharikov normal human manners, so they constantly prohibit and point him out. Sharikov is extremely irritated by this. Shvonder does not prohibit anything, but, on the contrary, tells Sharikov that he is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie.
Teacher: Are Shvonder himself and the representatives of the house committee highly developed personalities?
Students: Obviously not.
Teacher: Does Shvonder really understand complex political and ideological issues?
Students: Already from the first conversation between the members of the house committee and the professor, it is clear that these people in their development did not go much further than Sharikov. And they strive to divide everything, although they cannot even really direct the work of the house committee: there is no order in the house. You can sing in a choir (no matter what Philip Philipovich says, he himself often hums in a false, rattling voice), but you cannot sing in a choir instead of your main work.
Teacher: Why do Sharikov and Shvonder find a common language so quickly?
Students : Shvonder hates the professor because, feeling the scientist’s hostility, he is unable to prove it and “clarify” his true anti-revolutionary essence (and here Shvonder can’t deny his intuition!) For Shvonder, Sharikov is a tool in the fight against the professor: after all, it was Shvonder who taught Sharikov to demand living space , together they write a denunciation. But for Shvonder, this is the right thing to do, and denunciation is a signal, because the enemy needs to be brought to light and destroyed in the name of the future. happy life. Shvonder’s poor head just can’t comprehend why a man who, by all signs, is an enemy of the Soviet regime, is under its protection!
So, " Godfather» Poligraf Poligrafovich instills in his pupil the ideas of universal equality, brotherhood and freedom. Finding themselves in a consciousness in which animal instincts predominate, they only multiply the aggressiveness of the “new man.” Sharikov considers himself a full-fledged member of society not because he has done something for the benefit of this society, but because he is “not a NEPman.” In the fight for existence, Sharikov will stop at nothing. If it seems to him that Shvonder is taking his place in the sun, then his aggressiveness will be directed at Shvonder. “Shvonder is a fool” because he does not understand that soon he himself could become a victim of the monster that he is “developing” so intensively.
Teacher: Who is right in the dispute - Professor Preobrazhensky or Doctor Bormental?
Students: it is obvious that both scientists are only partly right: it cannot be said that Sharik’s brain is only “the unfolded brain of Sharik,” but it cannot be said that before us is only the reborn Klim.In Sharikov, the qualities of a dog and Chugunkin were combined, and Sharik’s slavish philosophy, his conformism and instinct of self-preservation, combined with Klim’s aggressiveness, rudeness, and drunkenness, gave birth to a monster.
Teacher: Why were scientists wrong in their assumptions?
Students: by the will of the writer, his characters did not know about Sharik what the author himself and his readers know.
Expected results:
These final conclusions resolve the problematic situation of 2 lessons, in understanding which students had to understand the role of composition, master Bulgakov’s language, learn to realize the importance of details in the story, and compare the images of the characters; comprehend the author's concept. In addition, the technique of comparing a work with its interpretation in another form of art allows schoolchildren to concretize their impressions.
UUD: cognitive (logical - analysis, synthesis, building cause-and-effect relationships; general educational - creating models, semantic reading, ability to construct a statement); communicative; personal (moral and aesthetic orientation); regulatory (correction).
Stage 4 Reflection
Exercise "Interesting".
Fill out the table:
In the “plus” column, students write down what they liked during the lesson, information and forms of work that aroused positive emotions or could be useful to them. In the “minus” column they write down what they didn’t like and remained unclear. All interesting facts are written down in the “interesting” column. If there is not enough time, this work can be done orally.
UUD: regulatory (assessment)
Homework for the next 2 lessons it will be like this:
1. Come up with a title for chapter 4 of “Heart of a Dog.”
3. Draw up a “code of honor” for Professor Preobrazhensky.
4. Explain the theory of education according to Professor Preobrazhensky and Dr. Bormental.
5. Describe the professor in the scenes of receiving patients, visiting the house committee, and at lunch. Prepare expressive reading these scenes.
Lesson objectives:
Cognitive aspect
1. Familiarize students with the cause of the church schism
2. Continue developing skills to work with historical sources(be able to extract information from them);
3. Instill a sense of respect for the historical heritage of our Motherland.
Developmental aspect:
1.development creativity(creation of projects, presentations on this topic);
2.development of the skill of communicating with a teacher remotely, the skill of independent work and self-control, communicative competencies;
3.development of orientation skills and searching for necessary information on the Internet;
development mental functions related to speech activity (thinking, memory, attention, perception, imagination and processing and transmission of necessary information.
Lesson type: lesson of studying and primary consolidation of new knowledge
Equipment: computer with Internet access, presentation "Church Schism"
Plan for studying a new topic.
1.New Romanov dynasty.
2. The beginning of the split
A) Patriarch Nikon. Church reform(1653-1655)
B) Archpriest Avvakum and his activities.
3.Church Council 1666 - 1667
4. Tribute to memory.
During the classes
Organizing time
Leading task.
Additional material for the student sent by email.
Nikon Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (Minin Nikita Minich)
Date of birth: 1605 Date of death: 1681 Date of tonsure: 1635
Nikon's fate is unusual. Born in 1605 in the village of Veldemanovo near Nizhny Novgorod “from simple but pious parents, a father named Mina and mother Mariama.” His father was a peasant, according to some sources, a Mordvin by nationality.
Nikita's childhood was not easy, his own mother died, and his stepmother was angry and cruel. The boy was distinguished by his abilities, quickly learned to read and write, and this opened the way for him to the clergy. He was ordained a priest, got married, and had children. It would seem that the life of the poor rural priest was forever predetermined and destined. But suddenly three of his children die from illness, and this tragedy caused such emotional shock among the couple that they decided to separate and take monastic vows.
Nikita's wife went to Alekseevsky convent, and he himself went to the Solovetsky Islands to the Anzersky monastery and was tonsured a monk under the name Nikon. He became a monk in the prime of his life. He was tall, powerfully built, had incredible endurance. He had a quick-tempered character and did not tolerate objections. There was not a drop of monastic humility in him. Three years later, having quarreled with the founder of the monastery and the entire brethren, Nikon fled from the island in a storm on a fishing boat. Nikon went to the Novgorod diocese, he was accepted into the Kozheozersk Hermitage, but after a few years the brethren chose him as their abbot. In 1646, on business at the monastery, he went to Moscow. There, the abbot of a run-down monastery attracted the attention of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
While Nikon was in Solovki, Patriarch Joseph died in Moscow. The Novgorod Metropolitan was the main contender for the patriarchal throne, but he had serious opponents. The boyars were frightened by the imperious manners of the peasant son, who humbled the noblest princes. In the palace they whispered: “There has never been such dishonor, the tsar handed us over to the metropolitans.” Nevertheless, the king's favor decided the matter. On July 22, 1652, the church council informed the tsar, who was waiting in the Golden Chamber, that out of twelve candidates, one “reverent and reverend man” named Nikon had been chosen.
Thus, at the age of forty-seven, Nikon became the seventh Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.
Correction of liturgical books
Nikon’s first step in a new field was the correction of church rituals. Nikon’s reform was intended only to cleanse the church service of the distortions that had accumulated over several centuries. Nikon himself had no doubt that he was doing a godly deed and promoting the unification of churches.
Then other changes were introduced: bows to the ground were replaced by bows from the waist, around the altar it was previously customary to “salt” - according to the sun, Nikon ordered to walk against the sun, the exclamation “hallelujah” during the service began to be pronounced not twice, but three times. The rank of proskomedia was changed, instead of seven prosvirs there were five, and so on.
Beginning of the split
For the vast majority of believers of that era Orthodox faith was identified with rituals and their change was perceived as extremely painful. Innovations were regarded as apostasy from the faith of their ancestors, violations of the dogmas consecrated by the church council of 1551. The decisions of the Stoglaniy Council proclaimed: “Whoever is not marked with two fingers, like Christ, is cursed.” Now Stoglav’s decisions were canceled. Nikon's reforms struck a blow to national pride, since the reform followed Greek models.
Archdeacon Pavel of Aleppo, who arrived in Russia in the retinue of the Patriarch of Antioch, left a vivid description of the scene in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin: “Nikon took the new icons presented to him one after another and, showing each one to the people, threw them onto the iron floor with such force that the icons broke, and finally ordered them to be burned. Then the king, an extremely pious and God-fearing man, who listened in humble silence to the patriarch’s sermon, said to him in a quiet voice: “No, father, do not order them to be burned, but rather order them to be buried in the ground.” Every time Nikon picked up any of the illegal icons, he said: this icon was taken from the house of such and such a nobleman, the son of such and such (he wanted to shame them publicly so that others would not follow). their example."
Opponents of the reform submitted a handwritten refutation to the tsar, in which the patriarch's order was called heresy. They pointed out that the inspection of liturgical books was carried out by people suspected of apostasy from Orthodoxy, for example, Arseny the Greek, who had previously been exiled to Solovki for studying at the Catholic Academy in Venice. Neronov denounced Nikon in the chamber of the cross: “Until now you were our friend - you rebelled against us. You ruined some and put others in their places, and nothing good can be heard from them. You accused others of torturing people, but you yourself constantly you're torturing..."
But the efforts of Nikon’s opponents were in vain; Alexey Mikhailovich trusted his “son’s friend,” as he called the patriarch, and betrayed all his enemies to him with his head.
Archpriest Avvakum(born 1621 - died 1682)
Nikon's victory led to a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. Those who refused to recognize the innovations were called schismatics by the official authorities. The schismatics themselves considered themselves followers of the true ancient Orthodox teaching bequeathed by the apostles, but Nikon and his followers were branded with the name of the servants of Antichrist. Most members of the circle of “zealots of piety” were unable to continue the struggle for various reasons. And only one of them defended his convictions to the end. It was he who was destined to become the ideological leader of the Old Believers, a “teacher of schism” in the eyes of the official church and a holy martyr for the Old Believers. This man's name was Habakkuk. (You can read more about the biography of Archpriest Avvakum here) It is interesting that Nikon and Avvakum, who became bitter enemies, were fellow countrymen from Nizhny Novgorod. Habakkuk's father died. The mother married her son to the orphaned daughter of the blacksmith Mark, Anastasia. The girl lived in poverty, often went to church and prayed to marry Habakkuk. Then my mother died in monasticism.
Avvakum Petrovich Kondratyev, the future archpriest Avvakum, was born in the village of Grigorov, fifteen miles from the native village of Nikita Minov, the future Patriarch Nikon. From the same Nizhny Novgorod district Almost all the figures from the era of the church schism came out, including John Nero and Bishop Paul. At the age of twenty-one, Avvakum Kondratiev was ordained a deacon, two years later he became a priest, and eight years later he was ordained to the rank of archpriest. He served fervently, did not sleep before the liturgy, and when the time for Matins arrived, he himself hurried to proclaim the gospel. At the service he stood with reverence, after mass he read the teachings, and after vespers he again read the canons, prayers, bowed to the ground - he himself made four hundred bows, he made condescension to his wife “before her children squeak” - a total of two hundred bows.
Like a preacher and church writer Habakkuk had one distinctive and unique feature. He was the first and only one to write not according to the book, but as they spoke in the streets and squares, using common expressions and not being afraid of strong words. He interpreted the most complex dogmatic issues in a simplified form, and presented biblical traditions as if all this did not happen in ancient Palestine, and in contemporary Rus'.
Avvakum with his wife and newborn baby went to Moscow. The baby was baptized on the way. In Moscow, the archpriest was given a letter to return to his old place. He did so, returned to the ruined house, and soon new troubles occurred: Avvakum expelled the buffoons from that place and took two bears from them. And the governor Vasily Petrovich Sheremetev, who was sailing to Kazan, took Avvakum on the ship. But the archpriest did not bless his son Matthew, who shaved his beard. The boyar almost threw the archpriest into the water.
Evfimey Stefanovich, another boss, also hated Avvakum and even tried to take his house by storm. And at night Euthyme felt bad, he called Avvakum to him and asked him for forgiveness. The archpriest forgave him, confessed him, anointed him with sacred oil, and Euthymeus recovered. Then he and his wife became the spiritual children of Habakkuk.
Nevertheless, the archpriest was expelled from this place, he went to Moscow again, and the sovereign ordered him to be placed in Yuryevets-Povolsky. And there are new troubles. Priests, men and women attacked Avvakum and beat him. This crowd tried to take the archpriest’s house by storm, but the governor ordered it to be guarded. Avvakum again went to Moscow, but the king was already dissatisfied with the fact that the archpriest left his place. Avvakum lived in Moscow at the Kazan Church, with Archpriest Ivan Neronov.
Nikon became the new patriarch. He commanded to be baptized with three fingers and to reduce the number of prostrations. Having learned about this, Ivan Neronov said that the time had come to suffer. Avvakum and the Kostroma archpriest Daniel wrote a letter to the king about faith, where they exposed Nikon’s heresy. After this, Nikon ordered the capture of Daniil, he was stripped of his hair and exiled to Astrakhan. Ivan Neronov was also exiled, and Archpriest Avvakum was put in prison on a chain. He was not fed for three days, but then someone came - either a man or an angel - and brought the archpriest a plate of cabbage soup. They were going to cut off Avvakum's hair, but at the king's request they didn't do it.
Avvakum also met the Novgorod Archbishop Nikon - “our friend,” as he called him then. But when Nikon began reforms, Avvakum became his zealous opponent. He led the fight against the patriarch after the exile of John Nero. He was forbidden to deliver teachings in the Kazan Cathedral, but he “started his all-night vigil” in the drying room, located in the courtyard of an exiled friend, luring some of the parishioners to himself: “at some time, even the stable, other churches are better.” On August 13, 1653, the denouement came. On that day, as priest Danilov reported in a letter to Neronov, the archpriest “was teaching on the porch... he spoke unnecessary words, which is not proper to say.” A detachment of archers captured the archpriest and sixty of his parishioners during the all-night vigil. Avvakum was brought to the patriarchal courtyard and put on a chain. Soon other opponents of Nikon were taken into custody. Avvakum was assigned the fate of being defrocked, and he was already brought to the cathedral to perform the ritual of defrocking, but Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich begged the patriarch to have mercy on the archpriest. Instead of being stripped of his hair, Avvakum “for his many atrocities” was exiled to Siberia by order of Nikon.
The archpriest's family bore all the hardships of exile; two small sons died from deprivation; the rest had to bare feet wander over sharp stones, beg for alms, and in times of hunger, eat grass and roots with his father, and do not disdain carrion.
Pustozersky prisoners.
Some of the captured Solovetsky Old Believers were exiled to Pustozersk, a remote fort on the border with the Arctic Circle, where the “schismatic teachers” - Avvakum and his like-minded people Nicephorus, Fyodor, Lazar and Epiphanius, cursed by the council of patriarchs - had been kept in prison for many years.
In response, as Avvakum bitterly joked, “goodies were sent.” A half-headed Streltsy arrived in Pustozersk to punish the rebels. Conditions for prisoners were tightened. Previously, at night they had the opportunity to meet for conversations in the house of one of the Pustozersky residents. Now a special prison was built for them. The timber was delivered to Pustozersk with considerable effort and expense from a place five hundred miles away from the fort in the tundra. The kolodniks were put in earthen pits reinforced with log houses, another log house was placed above the log houses, the yard was surrounded by a high fence, and guards were posted at the gates. In all of Pustozersk there were fifty-three courtyards, and the church rebels were guarded by one hundred archers. The prisoners were not allowed out of the earthen pits, not even to meet their natural needs.
Even with their tongues cut off and their fingers cut off, they continued to distribute “letters” and messages throughout Rus'. Who helped them remains a mystery.
One of the most outstanding works was born in an earthen pit. ancient Russian literature- "The Life of Archpriest Avvakum." The archpriest realized the unusualness of such a step - after all, in the genre of hagiography the exploits of saints were glorified, and he wrote about himself: “... I don’t need to talk about hagiography.” Habakkuk chose the form of the Acts of the Apostles, but the tone of his narrative is completely different. This is a deeply personal tone, improvisation with numerous lyrical digressions.
The death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, under whom the schism began, awakened in the prisoners hope for liberation. Avvakum petitioned the new Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich.
They did not give paper, Avvakum wrote on birch bark and these letters reached Moscow.
In February 1682, a church council met in Moscow. Tsar Fyodor Mikhailovich, in a message to the council, asked how to deal with schismatics. The council’s answer was: “at the sovereign’s discretion.” In the spring of the same year, an investigation began in Pustozersk in the case of Avvakum distributing “evil” writings from an earthen prison. The fate of the Pustozero elders was predetermined: “for the great royal house blasphemy" they were sentenced to death. They spent fifteen years in unbearable conditions of imprisonment, and now they had to end their lives all together on the same day.
On April 14, 1682, Avvakum, Epiphanius, Lazar and Fedor were burned at the stake. The description of their execution has reached us only in Old Believer literature. Avvakum, as the Old Believers wrote, foresaw such an end and distributed his books even before the verdict was pronounced. At the stake, he addressed the few present with an admonition to adhere to the old faith. As the flames shot up, one of his comrades screamed. Habakkuk leaned over to him and began to console him. The last thing that was visible through the fire and smoke was Habakkuk’s raised hand, blessing the people with two fingers, the last thing that was heard was his words: “If you pray with this cross, you will never perish.” According to legend, before his execution Avvakum predicted death to his tormentors, and indeed, just two weeks after the burning of the Pustozero elders, Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich died in Moscow. For the Old Believers, Avvakum became a holy martyr. The official canonization of the holy martyr and confessor Avvakum took place at the Consecrated Council in 1916.
1 .WITHgrowing state
and the party apparatus .
By the beginning of the 1920s. The country's economy was almost completely destroyed. In 1921 a new economic policy(NEP). The appropriation was replaced by a food tax, and trade was allowed. The measures taken made it possible to revive the economic activity of the population and bring the country out of the crisis. Thus, the leadership of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) retained its party’s monopoly on state power, but after Lenin’s death a fierce struggle for leadership in the party began.
During the Civil War, the RCP(b) actually began to replace the state apparatus. The most important decisions were initially made by the Politburo created in 1919 by G.E. Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev, V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, L.N. Trotsky, N.I. Bukharin, M.I. Kalinin. However, all its members also held government positions. The Communist Party has become a strictly centralized organization. This situation was opposed by the “workers’ opposition” led by A. Shlyapnikov. She accused the party leadership of degeneration. It was decided to discuss the differences at the X Congress of the RCP(b).
On March 8, 1921, the congress adopted a resolution “On Party Unity,” which prohibited the creation in the RCP (b) of factions that have a point of view different from the party leadership.
3. The main contradiction of the NEP. The essence of this contradiction was as follows. Steps have been taken towards the market in the economy. In politics, on the contrary, the regime became tougher and a one-party system was established. Various social groups did not have the opportunity to defend their interests. This contradiction was largely smoothed over by the fact that the head of the state was V. I. Lenin, who enjoyed unconditional authority in the party and the trust of the majority of the population. Formally, he did not hold any party position, but nevertheless led meetings of the plenums of the Central Committee and the Politburo. The secretariat of the Central Committee helped him manage party work. In 1922, Lenin became seriously ill. A position was needed as the head of the secretariat, who could conduct party affairs in Lenin’s absence. The choice fell on I.V. Stalin, who was involved in organizational work in the Central Committee. To raise the authority of the new position, it was decided to give it a sonorous name - general secretary. In April 1922, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev nominated I. Stalin to the post Secretary General Bolshevik Party - at that time it was a position that was considered administrative, almost clerical, intended for accounting and distribution of party personnel. However, Stalin skillfully managed the opportunities that appeared to him and placed his supporters everywhere, who controlled the situation at all levels of government.
Class assignment. Working with historical documents. P.158 of the Textbook, From the “Letter to the Congress,” read and answer the questions: 1) What shortcomings of Stalin caused Lenin particular concern? Why? What measures did Lenin propose to take against Stalin?
4. Stalin against Trotsky. Right bias.
After Lenin's death, rivalry in the party intensified, the struggle for power between supporters of Stalin and Trotsky intensified, and along with it, disputes about the paths of development: what to do next?
Textbook p. 158 questions: what accusations did Stalin bring against Trotsky and his supporters? Why was Trotsky defeated in the internal party struggle?
What programs to bring the country out of the crisis of 1927 competed in the party during this period?
Assignment for students. Fill out the table
« Alternative points view on the socio-economic crisis in the country"
| Point of view | Causes of the grain procurement crisis | Ways out of the crisis |
| N.I. Bukharin | ||
| I.V. Stalin |
Why did Stalin win?
After the death of the leader, Stalin announced the “Leninist conscription” of “machine workers” into the party. Individually and collectively, in sections and entire workshops, about a quarter of a million people joined the party in a few months. In February 1917, the Bolsheviks had 23,600 party members, by 1925 their number reached 800 thousand, and by 1930, due to several “Leninist” calls, exceeded 1.5 million people. The party card now served as a pass to the privileged strata of society, and therefore many sought to obtain it in order to pave the way in life. The revolution is over - the time has come to take the vacant seats: the party members of “Lenin’s appeals” made up the bureaucracy, those leading workers who supported Stalin. Many of them were uneducated; they clung to their jobs, to large salaries with benefits, and wanted to fully enjoy the benefits that were provided to them - closed food distributors, dachas with cars, separate apartments unattainable for others, luxurious sanatoriums in royal palaces on the Black Sea. Expulsion from the party led to the loss of a responsible post and could entail arrest and physical destruction - this is how a new generation of leaders arose, loyal, unprincipled and obedient "promoters" who unquestioningly carried out the instructions of their patrons - "to report on execution" in order to stay on high position and maintain privileges.
Why did Stalin win?
The result of the political development of the country in the 20s. was the formation of a one-party political system led by leader Stalin.
