Feature experiment as a special empirical method research lies in the fact that it provides the opportunity for active practical influence on the phenomena and processes being studied. The researcher here is not limited to passive observation of phenomena, but consciously intervenes in the natural course of their occurrence. He can do this either by isolating the phenomena under study from some external factors, or by changing the limiting conditions under which they occur. In both cases, test results are accurately recorded and monitored.

Thus, the addition of simple observation with an active influence on the process being studied turns the experiment into a very effective method empirical research. This is facilitated primarily by a closer connection between experiment and theory. “Experimentation,” write I. Prigogine and I. Stengers, “means not only reliable observation of genuine facts, not only the search for empirical dependencies between phenomena, but also involves systematic interaction between theoretical concepts and observation" 1.

The idea of ​​an experiment, its design, and the interpretation of the results depend much more on theory than the search for and interpretation of observational data.

Currently, the experimental method is used not only in those experimental sciences, which traditionally belong to exact natural sciences (mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc.), but also in the sciences that study wildlife, especially in those that use modern physical and chemical methods research (genetics, molecular biology, physiology, etc.).

In modern science, the experimental method was first systematically applied, as we already know, by Galileo, although individual attempts to use it can be found in antiquity and especially in the Middle Ages.

Galileo began his research by studying the simplest natural phenomena - the mechanical movement of bodies in space over time (falling bodies, movement of bodies along inclined plane and cannonball trajectories). Despite the apparent simplicity of these phenomena, he encountered a number of difficulties of both a scientific and ideological nature. The latter were associated mainly with the tradition of a purely natural-philosophical, speculative approach to the study of natural phenomena, dating back to antiquity. Thus, in Aristotelian physics it was recognized that movement occurs only when force is applied to a body. This position was considered generally accepted in medieval science. Galileo was the first to question it and suggested that the body would be at rest or in a uniform and straight motion until external forces act on it. Since Newton's time, this statement has been formulated as the first law of mechanics.

It is noteworthy that to justify the principle of inertia, Galileo was the first to use mental an experiment that later found wide application as a heuristic means of research in various branches of modern natural science. Its essence lies in the analysis of the sequence of real observations and in the transition from them to some limiting situation in which the action of certain forces or factors is mentally excluded. For example, when observing mechanical movement, you can gradually reduce the effect of various forces on the body - friction, air resistance, etc. - and make sure that the path traveled by the body will increase accordingly. In the limit, one can exclude all such forces and come to the conclusion that the body under such ideal conditions will move uniformly and rectilinearly indefinitely or remain at rest.

Galileo's greatest achievements, however, were associated with setting up real experiments and mathematical processing of their results. He achieved outstanding results in experimental studies of the free fall of bodies. In his wonderful book “Conversations and Mathematical Proofs...” Galileo describes in detail how he came to his discovery of the law of constancy of acceleration of freely falling bodies. At first, he, like his predecessors - Leonardo da Vinci, Benedetti and others, believed that the speed of a body's fall is proportional to the distance traveled. However, Galileo subsequently abandoned this assumption, since it leads to consequences that are not confirmed by experiment 1. Therefore, he decided to test another hypothesis: the speed of a freely falling body is proportional to the time of fall. From it followed the corollary that the path traveled by the body is proportional to half the square of the falling time, which was confirmed in a specially constructed experiment. Since there were serious difficulties in measuring time at that time, Galileo decided to slow down the fall process. To do this, he rolled a bronze ball down an inclined chute with well-polished walls. By measuring the time it took the ball to travel along various sections of the path, he was able to verify the correctness of his assumption about the constancy of the acceleration of freely falling bodies.

Modern science owes its enormous achievements precisely to experiment, since with its help it was possible to organically connect thought and experience, theory and practice. In essence, the experiment is a question addressed to nature. Scientists are convinced that nature answers the questions they correctly pose. Therefore, since the time of Galileo, experiment has become the most important means of dialogue between man and nature, a way of penetrating its deep secrets and a means of discovering the laws that govern the phenomena observed in the experiment.

• Prigozhy I., Stengers I. Order out of chaos. - M., 1986. - P. 44.
• Some famous historians of science, including P. Duhem, A. Crombie, D. Randell, claim that the occurrence experimental science happened back in the Middle Ages. To confirm their thesis, they refer to the fact that such experiments were carried out in the 13th-14th centuries. in Paris, and in the 16th century. in Padua.
• Galileo G. Selected works: In 2 volumes. Volume 1. - M.: Nauka, 1964. - P. 241-242.
• See: Lipson G. Great experiments in physics. - M., 1972. - P. 12.

What distinguishes an experiment from an observation? and got the best answer

Answer from Denis Odessa[active]
Differs from observation by active interaction with the object being studied. Usually the experiment is carried out within scientific research and serves to test a hypothesis, establish causal relationships between phenomena

Answer from Vasily Khaminov[guru]
by experimenting, you subject an object to some tests)) And observations are you simply observing it in natural conditions))

Answer from Daria Shevchuk[active]
observation is a passive way of knowing, and experience is an active way.

Answer from Vinera Ovechkina[newbie]
Observation is the perception of natural objects, and experiment is observation under specially created and controlled conditions. That is, the difference is that Observation is all dependent on nature, while Experimentation is where you have to do everything yourself

Answer from Dima Kuznetsov[guru]
you can watch the experiment O_O

Answer from _BE`Z analoga_ I`[newbie]
Scientific observation (N.) is the perception of objects and phenomena of reality, carried out for the purpose of their knowledge. In N.’s act one can highlight:
1) object;
2) subject;
3) funds;
4) conditions;
5) a knowledge system, based on which the goal of research is set and its results are interpreted.
All these components should be taken into account when reporting N.’s results so that it can be repeated by any other observer. The most important requirement for scientific science is compliance with intersubjectivity. It implies that N. can be repeated by every observer with the same result. Only in this case will the result of N. be included in science. Therefore, for example , observations of UFOs or various psychic phenomena that do not satisfy the requirement of intersubjectivity still remain outside science.
N. are divided into direct and indirect. With direct observation, the scientist observes the chosen object itself. However, this is not always possible. Eg. , objects of quantum mechanics or many objects of astronomy cannot be observed directly. We can judge the properties of such objects only on the basis of their interaction with other objects. This kind of information is called indirect; it is based on the assumption of a certain natural connection between the properties of directly unobservable objects and the observable manifestations of these properties and contains a logical conclusion about the properties of an unobservable object based on the observed effect of its action. It should be noted that a sharp line cannot be drawn between direct and indirect N. IN modern science indirect N. are becoming more widespread as the number and sophistication of instruments used in N. increase and the scope of scientific research expands. The observed object affects the device, and the scientist directly observes only the result of the interaction of the object with the device.
An experiment (E.) is a direct material impact on a real object or its surrounding conditions, carried out for the purpose of understanding this object.
The following elements are usually distinguished in E.:
1) goal;
2) object of experimentation;
3) the conditions in which the object is located or placed;
4) E. means;
5) material impact on the object.
Each of these elements can be used as the basis for the classification of E.; they can be divided into physical, chemical, biological, etc., depending on the differences in the objects of experimentation. One of the most simple classifications is based on differences in the goals of E.: for example. , establishment of k.-l. patterns or fact discovery. E. conducted for this purpose are called “search”. The result of search E. is new information about the area being studied. However, most often an experiment is conducted to test some hypothesis or theory. This kind of E. is called “testing”. It is clear that it is impossible to draw a sharp boundary between these two types of E. The same E. can be used to test a hypothesis and at the same time provide unexpected information about the objects being studied. In the same way, the result of search E. can force us to abandon the accepted hypothesis or, on the contrary, provide empirical justification for our theoretical reasoning. In modern science, the same element increasingly serves different purposes.
E. is always called upon to answer one question or another. But for a question to be meaningful and allow for a definite answer, it must be based on prior knowledge about the area being studied. This knowledge is provided by theory, and it is theory that poses the question for the sake of answering which E. is posed. Therefore E. cannot bring the correct result without theory. Initially, the question is formulated in the language of theory, that is, in theoretical terms denoting abstract, idealized objects. In order for E. to answer a theoretical question, this question must be reformulated in empirical terms, the meanings of which are sensory objects. It should, however, be emphasized that by carrying out N. and E., we go beyond the purely

Answer from Vladimir Sudin[guru]
Well, you know, HELLO!
An experiment is when you yourself participate, and observation - NOTHING depends on you....

Answer from Hungry Ghost[guru]
experiment - they conduct experiments, observation - they simply observe, look (for example, how quickly a plant grows under the influence of some kind of fertilizer) ... experiment - practice, observation - theory

Modern natural science is characterized by the strengthening of the role of observation. The main reasons for this phenomenon are:

1) development of the observation method itself: the equipment created for observation can operate in automatic mode for a long time and be controlled from a distance; its connection to a computer makes it possible to quickly and reliably process observational data;

2) awareness by the scientific community that experiments cannot be carried out on objects that are vital for humanity. This is, first of all, the ocean and the earth’s atmosphere. They can only be studied by observation;

3) the emergence of new opportunities for Earth observation with the development of space technology. Observations of the Earth from space make it possible to obtain information about integral terrestrial formations in an integrative form, which cannot be obtained when the subject of observation is on Earth. They allow us to observe holistic pictures of the interactions of several subsystems of the Earth at once, to observe the dynamics of a number of processes on the Earth;

4) the removal of observation means beyond the Earth’s atmosphere and even beyond its gravitational field expanded the possibility of astronomical observations. Thus, with the help of machines it was possible to see the far side of the Moon, survey the surface and surroundings of other planets solar system. The fact is that outside the earth's atmosphere there is no absorption of electromagnetic cosmic radiation in a wide range of frequencies by the atmosphere. After the instruments were taken beyond the Earth's atmosphere, X-ray and gamma-ray astronomy arose and began to rapidly develop.

What is scientific observation?

Observation- this is a deliberate, systematic perception of a phenomenon, carried out with the aim of identifying its essential properties and relationships.

Observation is an active form scientific activity subject. It requires setting the task of observation, developing a methodology for conducting it, developing ways to record the results of observation and process them.

The emerging observation tasks are caused by the internal logic of the development of natural science and the demands of practice.

Scientific observation is always associated with theoretical knowledge. It shows what to observe and how to observe. It also determines the degree of accuracy of observation.

Observations may be:

-direct – properties and aspects of an object are perceived by human senses;

-mediated- performed using technical means(microscope, telescope);

- indirect– in which it is not objects that are observed, but the results of their influence on some other objects (the flow of electrons, which is recorded by the glow of a screen with a special coating).

Observation conditions must ensure:

a) unambiguity of the observation plan;

b) the possibility of control either through repeated observation or through the use of new, different methods of observation. Observation results must be reproducible. Of course, there is no absolute reproducibility of observational results. The results of observations are recorded only within the framework of certain scientific knowledge.

During the process of observation, the subject does not interfere with the nature of the observed phenomenon. This generates disadvantages of observation How scientific method knowledge:

1. It is impossible to isolate the observed phenomenon from the influence of factors that obscure its essence. The concept of a darkening factor is easy to understand using the example of free falling bodies. Really, free fall bodies shows that air resistance clearly influences the nature of the body’s movement, but it does not have any effect on the dependence of this movement on gravity. Thus, a darkening factor is a factor on which the phenomenon being studied does not depend, but which modifies the form of manifestation of the phenomenon being studied.

2. The phenomenon cannot be reproduced as many times as required for this study; you have to wait for it to repeat itself.

3. It is impossible to study the behavior of a phenomenon in different conditions, i.e. it is impossible to study it comprehensively.

It is these shortcomings of observation that force the researcher to move on to experiment. To conclude this question, we note that in modern natural science observation increasingly takes the form of measuring the quantitative value of the properties of the system. The observation results are recorded in protocols. They are tables, graphs, verbal descriptions, etc. Having received observation protocols, the researcher tries to establish dependencies between certain properties: quantitative, sequence in time, concomitance, mutual exclusion, etc.

10. Experimental method

Experiment is a method of cognition based on controlling the behavior of an object using a number of factors, control over the action of which is in the hands of the researcher.

Experimentation has not completely replaced observation. Observation under experimental conditions records the impact on the object and the reaction of the object. Without this, the experiment goes in vain. For example, Ohm's law for a section of a circuit states: for metals and electrolytes, the current in the circuit is proportional to the applied voltage. In order to test this pattern experimentally, it is necessary to change the voltage in the circuit and observe (fix) how the current strength changes.

The main difference between the experiment from observation is that even in the simplest experiment it is created artificial system elements not previously encountered in human practice. This artificial system will be an experimental setup.

The main requirement for the experiment- reproducibility of its results. This means that an experiment conducted at different points in time, other things being equal, should give the same result. However, not every biological experiment, for example, can be repeated as many times as desired (heart transplant, etc.). Such a repetition is possible in principle. But there is also the question of the advisability of repetition.

Depending on the subject of research experiment subdivided into natural sciences, technical and social. The choice of this or that type of experiment, as well as the plan for its implementation, depends on research problem. In this regard, experiments are divided into: search, measurement, control, verification.

Search engines experiments are performed to discover unknown objects or properties. Measuring– to establish quantitative parameters of the subject or process being studied.

Tests– to check previously obtained results. Test– to confirm or refute a certain hypothesis or some theoretical statement.

Modern experiment is theoretically loaded. Really:

The experiment uses instruments, and they represent the materialized result of previous theoretical activity;

Every experiment is built on the basis of some theory, and if the theory is well developed, then it is known in advance what result the experiment will lead to;

An experiment, as a rule, does not provide a continuous picture of the process, but only its key points. Only theoretical thinking is capable of reconstructing the entire process from them;

When processing experimental data, it is necessary to carry out averaging and apply the theory of errors.

The theoretical load of the experiment increases. The reason for this is the occurrence mathematical theory experiment, the use of which reduces the number of samples in the experiment and increases its accuracy.

In order to clearly understand the possibilities and limits of applicability of the theory of experiment planning and the creation of automated experiment control systems, it is necessary to take into account that all decisions and actions of the experimenter can be conditionally divided into two types:

1) based on a detailed and scrupulous study of a specific phenomenon;

2) based on more general properties, characteristic of many phenomena and objects.

We will call the first decisions and actions heuristic, and the second - formalizable. If we are talking about the heuristic part, then success here is determined by the level of training of the experimenter in a specific field of knowledge, as well as his intuition. The mathematical theory of experiment deals with the study of only the formalized part experimental activities. Success here is entirely determined by the development of the theory and the level of training of the experimenter within the framework of this theory.

The most important concept in the theory of experimental planning is the concept of factor. Factor is called a controlled independent variable corresponding to one of the possible ways of influencing the object of study. Often such variables are called adjustable factors. Controlled factors can be temperature, pressure, composition of the reaction mixture, concentration, etc. In each specific case, the number of these factors and their numerical values ​​are clearly defined. When choosing factors, it is advisable to take into account as many of them as possible. They are established based on the results of a literature review, studying the physical essence of the process, logical reasoning and survey of specialists.

The quantitative and qualitative states of factors selected for the experiment are called factor levels. As factors, it is advisable to select such independent variables that correspond to one of the reasonable impacts on the object of study and can be measured with sufficiently high accuracy using available means.

Basic requirements for factors, such:

a) controllability, i.e. the ability to set and maintain the selected desired factor level constant throughout the entire experiment and change it according to a given program. The requirement of controllability is associated with the need to change factors during the experiment at several levels, and in each individual experiment the level of variation must be maintained quite accurately.

b) compatibility, i.e. feasibility of any combination of factors. The compatibility of factors means that all their combinations can be implemented in practice. This requirement is serious, since in some cases the incompatibility of factors can lead to the destruction of the installation (for example, as a result of the formation of a mixture of gases prone to self-explosion) or measuring instruments.

c) independence, i.e. the ability to establish factors at any level, regardless of the level of other factors. The concept of independence suggests that a factor is not a function of other factors. In particular, a factor such as room temperature is a function of other factors: the number of heat emitters and their location, etc.

d) the accuracy of measurement and control must be known and sufficiently high (at least an order of magnitude higher than the accuracy of measurement of the output parameter). Low accuracy of factor measurement reduces the possibility of reproducing the experiment;

e) there must be a one-to-one correspondence between the factors and the output parameter, i.e. a change in factors will entail a change in the output parameter;

f) the areas of determination of the factors must be such that, at the limiting values ​​of the factors, the output parameter remains within its boundaries.

The experiment is also affected by uncontrollable factors - these are uncontrolled conditions for conducting experiments. It is basically impossible to describe them all, and it is not necessary.

The next important concept of the mathematical theory of experiment is concept of “response function”. What is behind this concept?

The course of the process is quantitatively characterized by one or more quantities. In the theory of experimental planning, such quantities are called response functions. They depend on the influencing factors.

By mathematical description of the process we will understand a system of equations connecting response functions with influencing factors. In the simplest case, this can be one equation. Often such a mathematical description is called a mathematical model of the process being studied. The value of a mathematical description of the phenomenon being studied is that it provides information about the influence of factors, allows one to quantify the value of the response function for a given process mode, and can serve as a basis for optimizing the process being studied.

When choosing an output parameter, the following requirements must be taken into account:

a) the output parameter must have a quantitative characteristic, i.e. must be measured;

b) it must unambiguously assess (measure) the performance of the research object;

c) it must be such that it is possible to clearly distinguish between experiments;

d) it should reflect as fully as possible the essence of the phenomenon under study;

d) it must have a fairly clear physical meaning.

The successful choice of the output parameter is largely determined by the level of knowledge of the phenomenon being studied.

You can use two or more output parameters, but then the task becomes much more complicated. It must be taken into account that factors are selected only after the output parameter (or parameters) have been selected.

The process is controlled using instruments that measure input and output parameters. For short-term studies, it is recommended to use indicating controls, and for long-term studies, recording controls.

The space whose coordinates are factors is usually called factor space, or the space of independent variables. Mathematical analysis planning an experiment comes down to choosing the optimal location of points in the factor space that ensures obtaining the best, in a certain sense, research results.

Modern experimental studies have the following features:

1. The impossibility of observing the phenomena under study using only the senses of the subject-experimenter (low or high temperatures, pressure, vacuum, etc.);

2. Natural science of the 19th century tried to deal experimentally with well-organized systems, i.e. study systems that depend on a small number of variables. The ideal, for example, of an experimental physicist was one-factor experiment. Its essence is as follows: It was assumed that the researcher could stabilize all the independent variables of the system being studied with any degree of accuracy. Then, by changing some of them one by one, he established the dependencies that interested him. Here is an example of a one-factor experiment. Let's consider a gas that is at a certain temperature, pressure, and volume. Each of the named system parameters (temperature, pressure, volume) can be made constant. So you can, say, study the change in the volume of a gas with a change in pressure, if the temperature is constant, i.e. carry out an isothermal process. Isobaric and isochoric processes are carried out similarly.

In the second half of the 20th century, the need arose to conduct experiments with diffuse, i.e. poorly organized systems. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that in such systems several processes of different nature take place simultaneously. Moreover, they are so closely related to each other that, in principle, they cannot be considered in isolation from each other. For example this physical processes, which occur between the cathode and anode in the lamp, this is emission spectral analysis, etc.;

H. Use of filtering devices. The bottom line: not all signals produced experimentally have the same value. It is often difficult to identify from a large amount of information what is essential. In such situations, filter devices are used. These are machines capable of selecting incoming signals and providing the researcher with the information needed to solve the problem.

Example. In the physics of the microworld, it is known that the same particle can decay through several channels. The probabilities of decays through different channels are different. Some of them are negligible. For example, the K + meson decays through seven channels. The decay of the K + - meson, which occurs with low probability, is very difficult to detect if the experimental results are processed manually. This is where filtering devices are used. They automate the search for the desired type of decay elementary particle;

4. Modern experiments are characterized by the use of complex equipment, a large volume of measured and recorded parameters, and the complexity of algorithms for processing the received information.

All experiments are carried out with the following goals:

1) to obtain new empirical data that is subject to further generalization;

2) in order to confirm or refute existing ideas and theories, and it is necessary to understand what the experiment confirms in theory and what it does not.

The experiment does not test the theory as a whole, but its observed consequences. Through measurements, two groups of facts are compared: those predicted by theory and those found as a result of measurements. If there is not at least an approximate coincidence between them, the theory, even if logically coherent, cannot be considered satisfactory. At the same time, the experiment does not allow us to draw an absolute conclusion about the correctness of the theory. Having received experimental confirmation of a theoretical position, it is not always possible to guarantee that the experiment only confirmed it. The researcher does not always know how many other valid assumptions the result satisfies. This, in particular, is related to the impossibility of a “decisive experiment.” The experiment absolutely confirms not the theoretical construction itself, but its specific interpretation.

In some cases, observation and in all cases experiment are associated with measuring certain characteristics of the system being studied.

What is measurement?

The procedure for establishing one quantity using another, taken as a standard, is called measurement. Measurement links observation with mathematics and allows the creation of quantitative theories.

The measurement method includes three main points:

a) choosing a unit of measurement and obtaining a corresponding set of measures;

b) establishing a rule for comparing a measured quantity with a measure and a rule for adding measures;

c) description of the measurement procedure.

So, measurement involves carrying out one or another physical procedure, but is not limited to it. To achieve its purpose, measurement must also involve some theory. It is also necessary to know the theory of the device, since without such knowledge its readings will remain incomprehensible to us.

The purpose of observations and experiments is to provide science with facts. What is meant by fact?

There are different definitions of fact in the literature. We assume fact empirical knowledge, which either serves as the starting point in the construction of a scientific theory, or plays the role of testing its truth. By the way, theoretical knowledge can also perform these two named functions. And then it will act as a fact.

Since a fact is an element of knowledge, it often merges with its explanation. It is very important to always clear the facts from their explanation as much as possible. Why? If we are for real fact If we present a fact that has already been explained, then we will unreasonably impose a ban on other possible explanations of this fact. However, it must be borne in mind that facts do not exist in their pure form. Every fact bears the stamp of existing knowledge. As a form of knowledge for natural science, a fact is valuable in that it has a certain invariance in various systems knowledge.

While looking after my little son, I constantly see him making new discoveries by observing the world and conducting small experiments. Now he himself does not know what these concepts mean and how they differ. But when he's a little older, this is what I'll tell him.

My observations and experiences

It's best to explain with an example.

I have always loved observing the objects of the world around me. So, it is very interesting to watch how ants behave depending on the weather and time of day.

But what I love even more is conducting experiments.

Once in my childhood I had an amazing experience. From the children's encyclopedia, I learned that the abdomen of ants is transparent. This assumption became my hypothesis, which needed to be confirmed or refuted. I prepared sweet syrups different colors and placed small droplets near the anthill. It's funny, but when the ants drank, their tummies turned the color of a drop of syrup. This confirmed my hypothesis.

Have you guessed how my simple observations of the life of an anthill differed from the experiment I conducted?

• In the first case, I simply watched (observed) the behavior of insects. While conducting the experiment, I myself needed to interact with the subjects by placing colored drops near the anthill.
• While conducting the experiment, I had a hypothesis (from the children's encyclopedia) and an action plan.
• The observations did not require any equipment (although this is not always true; for example, to observe space objects, you will need a telescope). For the experiment, I needed sugar, water, dyes and other means for making syrup.

Cat watching

Watch your pet. You will notice many interesting features. For example, that cats are capable of making many sounds that are different from each other.

Experience "Lava"

This interesting experience you can test the hypothesis that oil is lighter than water, but salt is heavier than oil.

1. Take a glass. Fill it with water and vegetable oil (2:1). The oil will remain floating on top.
2. Add food coloring.
3. Add a spoonful of salt.

"Lava" in a jar

Enjoy the “lava” in a glass.

Observation method. Observation stages

Observation is carried out by the researcher by inclusion in an experimental situation or by indirect analysis of the situation and recording the phenomena and facts of interest to the researcher.

Stages of observational research (according to K.D. Zarochentsev):

1) Definition of the subject of observation, object, situation.

2) Choosing a method for observing and recording data.

3) Creation of an observation plan.

4) Choosing a method for processing the results.

5) Actually observation.

6) Processing and interpretation of received information.

Similarities and differences between observation and experiment

Observation according to Meshcheryakov B.G. - “organized, purposeful, recorded perception of mental phenomena for the purpose of studying them under certain conditions.”

Experiment according to Meshcheryakov B.G. - “conducted in special conditions experience to obtain new scientific knowledge through the researcher’s targeted intervention in the life activity of the subject.”

Analyzing the specifics of observation and experiment methods, we will determine their similarities and differences.

Common features in observation and experiment:

Both methods require preliminary preparation, planning and goal setting;

The results of research using observation and experiment require detailed processing;

The results of the study may be influenced by the personal characteristics of the researcher.

Differences in observational and experimental methods:

The ability to change the situation and influence it in an experiment and the inability to make changes in observation;

The purpose of observation is to state the situation, the purpose of the experiment is to change the situation, to monitor the degree of influence of certain means on the situation;

The experimental method requires clear knowledge about the object being studied; this knowledge is often acquired through observation.

Practical task

The topic of the survey was developed taking into account the characteristics of the target group with which we intended to work. Teenagers from high school were selected as such. According to Vygotsky L.S. The leading activity at this age is intimate and personal communication. Through communication with peers and adults, a teenager builds his personal attitude towards the world and forms his own unique image. In this regard, it is dangerous for a teenager not to be among his peers. It is extremely important to have friends and associates at this age.

That is why the following topic was chosen for the survey: “Me and my friends.”

The purpose of the survey: to determine the level of formation of friendships among modern teenagers of high school age.

To achieve the goal, a questionnaire was developed:

Questionnaire “Me and my friends”

Instructions:

Hello.

You are invited to take part in a scientific study.

Please read each question carefully and answer it as honestly as possible by circling the answer that seems correct to you, or by entering the answer you need in the special answer field. For multiple choice questions, you only need to choose one.

Personal data:

Last name, first name_______________________________________ Class_________________

1. Do you have a circle of friends?

a) yes; b) no.

2. What unites you?_____________________________________________

3. Which friend would you trust with your secret?______________

4. Which friend would you turn to for help in a difficult situation?_________________________________________________

5. What qualities do your friends value in you?___________________________

6. Remember the times when you helped one of your friends cope with any problem________________________________

7. How do you feel with your friends?

a) good, fun;

b) boring, sad;

c) first one thing, then another.

8. What kind of friends would you like to have?________________________

9. What character qualities are most valued among your friends?___________________________________________

10. What would you call the group where you spend your free time?

a) my friends;

b) my company;

c) party;

d) my yard;

e) my team;

f) your own version_________________________________________________________

11. Do you have adults with whom you communicate? Who is this?_______________________________________________________

12. Do you have conflicts? If so, how are they usually resolved?

b) a fight;

c) thanks to the intervention of the leader;

d) thanks to the intervention of an adult;

e) a compromise of some of the guys.

13. How do adults feel about your group?

a) kindly;

b) hostile;

c) neutral.

14. Mark which statements you agree with:

a) I am often consulted;

b) I can’t make an important decision without my friends;

c) no one truly understands me;

d) it’s easier for me to make a decision myself and tell others about it;

d) it’s easier for me to make a decision together with everyone.

15 How would you describe your mood when you are with your friends?_________________________________

The questionnaire contains quite informative instructions that help you understand the essence of the task. In total, the questionnaire contains 15 questions, both open and closed. The different types of questions are mixed, which helps the interviewee focus on each question. The most difficult questions that require the most honest answers are located in the middle of the questionnaire.

12 people took part in the survey - students in grades 9-10 secondary school. The gender and age composition of the target group is presented in the diagrams below.

Diagram 1-2. Sex and age composition of respondents

Let's move on to analyzing the data obtained and their interpretation.

Absolutely all teenagers answered the first question positively, saying that they have friends. Among the factors that unite respondents with their friends were: common interests, studies, spending time together, mutual acquaintances, and parent-friends.

Diagram 3. Factors that unite friends

In the answer column to the third question, the names of friends or the number of friends were often indicated. The number of friends to whom respondents could entrust personal secrets did not exceed 1-2.

The answers to the fourth question were similar. The respondents' circle of help consisted of the same people as their circle of trust.

Among the qualities valued by the respondents' friends in the respondents themselves were: humor, the ability to understand, the ability to trust, the ability to help, and sociability.

Diagram 4. Qualities valued by friends

To question 6, the most common answers were “I find it difficult to answer” or “I can’t remember.” It was also not uncommon for respondents to skip a question. Only 15% of total number respondents responded to this question. Among the answers, there were cases from personal life that practically did not intersect with each other.

80% of respondents responded that they feel fun in the company of their friends. 20% of respondents have mixed feelings.

Among the qualities of ideal friends, respondents named honesty, sense of humor, responsibility, devotion, and respect.

Most of these qualities were also named among those considered basic among the respondent’s friends.

The answers to question 10 were distributed as follows:

Diagram 5. Name of circle of friends by respondents

Among the adults with whom teenagers communicate, the following stood out: parents, teachers, and coaches. Adults often have a neutral (55%) or negative (30%) attitude towards age groups.

Conflict situations do not arise often and are resolved by finding a compromise between the children.

The answers to the penultimate question were divided as follows:

a) people often consult me ​​- 25%;

b) I can’t make an important decision without my friends - 20%;

c) no one truly understands me - 15%;

d) it’s easier for me to make a decision myself and tell others about it - 20%;

e) it’s easier for me to make a decision together with everyone - 20%.

85% characterize their mood among friends positively, 15% negatively.

Interpretation of the data obtained during the survey leads to the following conclusions:

1. Among schoolchildren and teenagers there is a great desire to form peer groups;

2. All teenagers believe that they have a large circle of friends. Meanwhile, they can only tell a secret or turn to a small number of people for help.

3. Most teenage groups are formed on the basis of common leisure activities, educational activities and interests.

4. Teen groups often change their composition and are unstable.

5. Teenage groups influence the opinions of the teenagers included in them, but often are not a resource for making serious decisions regarding the teenager’s personality.

6. Teenagers have rather vague ideas about friendship. They call you friends a large number of of people.

7. Adults are practically distant from the processes of forming and managing teenage groups.

8. Modern teenagers Reliability, honesty, mutual assistance, trust and the ability to help are valued.