DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/1813-4718.2505.06
UDC: 
372.8+378
Kharlamov Andrei Vasilievich
Кандидат философских наук, Associate Professor at the Department of Law and Philosophy, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University", harlam@inbox.ru, Novosibirsk

The Impact of Heuristic Teaching of Philosophy on Intrinsic Motivation of University Students

Abstract: 
Based on many years of experience in teaching philosophical disciplines at a pedagogical university the author of the article examines the impact of heuristic learning practices on the motivation of university students. The article examines the key challenges faced by educators in the context of pedagogical interaction. The article analyzes the results of applying heuristic techniques in philosophy classes and explores methods for their practical implementation. Problem Statement: There is a gradual decline in students’ interest in philosophy as an academic discipline, which is occurring within the framework of a prevailing evaluative paradigm in public consciousness and pedagogical practice. The study of philosophy requires a pedagogical format that fosters students’ internal growth rather than focusing solely on their academic performance. Heuristic learning does not imply a rejection of the existing educational structure but rather offers a return to authentic thinking. The author calls upon fellow educators to demonstrate institutional flexibility and pedagogical courage. The aim of the article is to substantiate the effectiveness of the heuristic approach in teaching philosophy at the university level, to justify specific techniques, and to identify barriers associated with the implementation of this method in pedagogical practice. Methodology. The research draws on key approaches developed within the framework of heuristic pedagogy, including the constructivist approach. It employs principles such as personal goal-setting, free choice of individual educational trajectories, transdisciplinarity, and systematic reflection. The study utilizes general scientific methods, including analysis, synthesis, and comparison. The author also relies on the following methodological approaches: historical-logical, philosophical-pedagogical, logical-compositional, dialogical, and learner-centered. Conclusion. The article concludes that the heuristic approach is the most suitable form of teaching philosophy at the university. It allows to remove the most serious contradictions of external academic requirements of the essence of philosophical thinking. It is noted that its implementation requires efforts from both the student and the teacher.
Keywords: 
barriers; dialogue; motivation; experience; evaluation; paradox; self-assessment; philosophy; heuristics; heuristic learning
References: 

1. Xenophon, 1993. Memories of Socrates. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 379 p. (In Russ.)
2. Freire, P., 2019. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Moscow: Radical Theory and Practice Publ., 176 p. (In Russ.)
3. Dewey, D. 1997. Psychology and Pedagogy of Thinking. Moscow: Perfection Publ., 208 p. (In Russ.)
4. Rogers, K., Freiberg, D., 2002. Freedom to Learn. Moscow: Smysl Publ., 527 p. (In Russ.)
5. Korol, A. D., 2020. Heuristic Learning Based on Questioning and Silence of the Student: From Methodology to Practice. St. Petersburg: Lan Publ., 196 p. (In Russ.)
6. Mironova, O. A., 2011. Heuristic teaching method in the development of creativity. Bulletin of Tula State University. Humanities, no. 3-2, pp. 272–280. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
7. Cherkashina, T. T., 2008. Heuristic teaching methods as the basis of pedagogical innovation. Polylingualism and transcultural practices, no. 4, pp. 20–23. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
8. Getmanskaya, E. V., 2009. Heuristic method: genesis and modern functioning. Siberian pedagogical journal, no. 2, pp. 261–268. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
9. Batyaeva, T. A., 2007. Didactic conditions for the use of heuristic techniques in the university. Bulletin of Moscow State University, no. 2, pp. 186–191. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
10. Andreev, V. I., 1994. Heuristics for creative self-development. Kazan, 247 p. (In Russ.)
11. Khutorskoy, A. V., 2003. Didactic heuristics: theory and technology of creative learning. Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House Publ., 416 p. (In Russ.)
12. Salmanova, D. A., Bagirowa, Z. K., 2018. Using heuristic methods in teaching bachelors of pedagogical education. Azimuth of scientific research: pedagogy and psychology, vol. 7, 3 (24), pp. 204–206. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
13. Donchenko, N. A., 2010. Heuristic approach to the methodology of pedagogical research. Bulletin of Polesie State University. Series of social and humanitarian sciences, no. 1, pp. 42–48. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
14. Sokolov, V. N., 1995. Pedagogical heuristics. Moscow: Aspect-press Publ., 225 p. (In Russ.)
15. Dialogue on dialogics (round table). Questions of philosophy, 1992. no. 12, pp. 139–150. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
16. Korosteleva, S. G., 2019. Discussion as an active teaching method in the professional training of future teachers. Bulletin of Kostroma State University. Series: Pedagogy. Psychology. Sociokinetics, no. 2, pp. 118–122. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
17. Gedulyanova, N. S., Mityaeva, A. M., 2016. Organization of research activities of students. Scientific notes of OSU. Series: Humanities and social sciences, no. 3 (72), pp. 274–283. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
18. Bakhtina, A. S., 2016. The Problem of Using Case Studies in the Educational Process. Vectors of Well-Being: Economy and Society, no. 2 (21), pp. 23–31. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
19. Zharkova, G. A. 2014. Theoretical and Methodological Foundations and Heuristic Potential of the Situational-Prognostic Approach to the Development of an Individual’s Information Culture: Abstract Doct. Sci. (Pedag.). Ulyanovsk, 51 p. (In Russ.)
20. Garanina, O. D., 2018. From Learning to Creativity: The Role of Philosophy in the Educational Process. International Journal of Experimental Education, no. 4, pp. 19–24. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
21. Gusev, D. V., Esipova, N. D., 2017. Active Forms of Teaching Philosophy at the University. Problems of Modern Education, no. 4, pp. 27–34. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
22. Apukhtina, N. G., Milyaeva, E. G., Penner, R. V., 2018. Methods of philosophical practice (philosophical consulting and partnership) in the student audience: an educational experiment. Part I. Society and power, no. 6 (74), pp. 68–78. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
23. Vatolina, Yu. V., Krebel, I. A., Yankova, N. A., 2011. The logic of difference: methodological guidelines in the formation of an actual strategy of thought. Bulletin of Omsk State University, no. 4, pp. 217–221. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
24. Kalchenko, A. G., 2010. The influence of self-esteem on the effectiveness of the educational process. Bulletin of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, no. 5-2, pp. 345–348. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
25. Prokhorova, M. P., Lebedeva, T. E., 2020. Advantages and disadvantages of the peer assessment method in higher education. Educational resources and technologies, no. 3 (32), pp. 37–43. (In Russ.)
26. Volodina, O. V., 2021. Critical thinking as an indicator of the development of the intellectual culture of the personality of a future teacher by means of foreign language education. Problems of modern pedagogical education, no. 70-4, pp. 86–89. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
27. Dwyer, C. P., 2023. An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational and Real-World Settings. Journal of Intelligence, no. 11(6), 105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105 (In Eng., abstract in Eng.)
28. Andreas, O. M., Bukidz, D. P., 2023. Creativity and Innovation in Philosophy Learning: A Literature Study. Indonesian Journal of Advanced Research, no. 2(4), pp. 269–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/ijar.v2i4.3783 (In Eng., abstract in Eng.)