У статті розкрито педагогічні погляди В. Сидоренка на трудового навчання учнів, які
були пов’язані з запропонуванням можливих назв освітньої галузі “Технології”; наголошенням
на можливості оновлення змісту трудового навчання учнів на основі знань про виробництво та
доцільності інваріантної складової у його структурі; визначенням трудового навчання основою
формування технологічної культури учнів; висвітленням дослідження рівня сформованості
елементів технологічної культури учнів, як критерію ефективності їх технологічної
підготовки; з’ясуванням чинників, що обумовлюють сучасний стан трудового навчання та
виокремленням першочергових завдань з його вдосконалення.
The article deals with the pedagogical views of V. Sidorenko on the labor education of students.
They consisted in the following: the definition of technology not only the process of manufacturing and
processing materials, but as a transformational activity of man in general and a means of knowledge of
the world; the emphasis on the need to update not only the borrowed name of the educational field, but also changes in the content of labor education; updating the content of labor training based on
knowledge of production, which will promote a holistic view of the industrial culture accumulated by
our civilization; coverage of the contents of the invariant and variational component in the structure of
labor education; the definition of labor education at school is the basis for the formation of the
technological culture of students, among which the culture of work, graphic informative,
entrepreneurial, ecological, consumer, project culture, design culture, human relationships and
everyday life are distinguished; revealing the study of the level of formation of elements of
technological culture of students, as a criterion for the effectiveness of their technological preparation.
Along with this, the study of the organization of labor education of students enabled V. Sidorenko
to identify and reveal the influence of local, systemic, global and supra-system factors on the current
state of labor education. The scientist saw the priority tasks for its improvement in: development,
scientific substantiation, and implementation of an effective program of development of labor
education in Ukraine; a large-scale explanation of the importance of work and the need for students to
master the modern technological (labor) culture and the application of a variety of technological
innovations; providing pedagogical teams with increasing student interest in scientific and
technological activities.
Consequently, the pedagogical views of the scientist on the labor education of students reflected
the realities of the development of the national education system. They were aimed at increasing the
productivity of the educational process of school students and should be taken into account by theorists
and practitioners whose justifications became the basis of the content of labor training in the new
Ukrainian school.
