The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Mikhail Geraskov (1874-1957)
Methodological Concepts of Learning Physics.
Mariyana Ilieva* This article is made with the financial support of the European Social Fund, project № BG051PO0013.3.06/0026. Mariyana Ilieva has the sole responsibility for the content of the article and it cannot be
considered as an official statement of the European Union or of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski",
Faculty of Education

199	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Abstract

Mikhail Geraskov is a distinguished Bulgarian educator from the first half of the twentiethcentury, who developed the scientific foundations of didactics and methodology of training. His
work contributed a lot to the development of the Bulgarian pedagogy. The subject of scientificresearch is didactical conceptions and methodological conceptions of learning. The aim of theresearch paper is to presents his ideas about particular methods of teaching Physics for highschool. Geraskov assumes direct correlation between didactics and methodology. This paper
focuses on his ideas about design, technology and methodological requirements for lessons ofPhysics. He believes that the appropriate methods are determined by the curriculum, set of
educational goals and age characteristics, and capabilities of adolescents. In his methodical
recommendations he focuses on teaching methods and forms that provoke students’ activity.
Comparative analysis with publications on the issues set for development of the Bulgarianpedagogic science and the actuality in the modern education system.

Keywords: Education; Design lesson; Methods of teaching; Classroom practice; Historicalpedagogy.

200	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Introduction
Mikhail Geraskov is a distinguished Bulgarian teacher from the first half of the twentieth century,
who developed the scientific foundations of didactics and methodology of training. In the period
1923 – 1940 he was a lecturer at Sofia University. The period was characterized by thedevelopment and influence of the Herbartianism and the Alternative education. During thisperiod at the University taught some of the distinguished Bulgarian educators - professors
Dimitar Katzarov (1881-1960), Petko Tzonev (1875-1950), Hristo Negentzov (1881-1956). In the
1920s at the University were formed two major departments the Department of Pedagogy, (1924)
it was led by professor Katzarov and the Department of Didactics and methodology, in 1924
headed by Professor Tsonev who attracts Geraskov of academic activity. The period 1921-1950
was characterized by the launch of the development of university courses in methods of teachingvarious subjects. Geraskov is one of the erudite Bulgarian teachers.

201	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter

	
  

	
  

	
  
Mikhail Geraskov (1874-1957)

Mikhail Geraskov with colleagues and students at the
University, Sofia 1939

The scientific production of Mikhail Geraskov is voluminous and of a varied content. The
scientific areas contain Pedagogy, Theory of education, Philosophy of education, Didactics,
Methodology of training, Educational psychology, School law, History of international andBulgarian education.
202	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Despite all these facts in contemporary Bulgarian historiography scientific publications include
separate studies of his ideas. The reason for this is the change of political ideology in Bulgaria. In
September 1944 a communist regime was imposed in Bulgaria and the country’s political, socialand cultural structures were radically changed by the ideology of this regime. Thinking people
are a barrier before any dictatorship, therefore the first task of usurpers is terror and genocide ona mass scale against the intellectual class. Some of the books by Geraskov have been on the listof books banned by the government. The Bulgarian cultural life was dominated by the communist
ideas for 45 years.
The research paper is part of a scientific study, which explores and analyzes the scientificproduction of Mikhail Geraskov in the field of didactics and methodology of training. The
scientific study investigates and presents the didactical and methodological conceptions
developed by Mikhail Geraskov. In the context of this research paper contribution is related tothe development of this issue in its entirety. The aim of the research paper is to present his ideas
on methods of teaching Physics. The following tasks are:•to present his views on the scientific status of the teaching methodology•

to analyze Geraskov’s basic methodological views for teaching Physics•

to define and show their importance and relevance in modern methods in the Bulgarian
education

The research is built on the scientific production of Geraskov’s work on methods of teachingparticular subjects and interpretation of key publications on the topic.
Literature review
The Bulgarian educational history includes separate studies of his pedagogical conceptions.
While many studies have been done since then, few of them includes Geraskov’s philosophy of
methods of teaching particular subjects in school.
203	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Radev (1988, 1999, 2002) developed the theme of pedagogical thought in Bulgaria in the firsthalf of the twentieth century. He presented basic facts about ideas of Geraskov. Radev described
his contribution to the development of the Bulgarian pedagogy, especially of the didactics andmethodology of training.
In the some research about the history of the methodology of teaching the authors very briefly
wrote for Geraskov. Radeva (2009) presented information about his methodological concept oflearning History. Antonova (1983) wrote about his methodological concept of learning Chemistry.
Each of the authors briefly presented his contribution to the development of the methodology of
training.
Yordanova (2005) examined the methodological views of Geraskov for learning Pronunciation in
the elementary school. In conclusion the author expressed position that he is one of the mostimportant educators of scientific thought and his methodological concept of learning Bulgarian
language has actual dimensions and value.
Petrova (2005) presented in detail information about his methodological concept of learning
Bulgarian language. In summary the author wrote that the methodological heritage of Geraskov isvaluable. She defined him as a progressive scholar who put rational requirements about thedesign and the technology for lessons of Bulgarian language. Gulabova had such task of her
article (2005). She briefly described the ideas of Geraskov about the methodological concept oflearning Particular subject.
Ilieva (2012) described in detail Geraskov’s basic methodological views for teaching Bulgarian
language and Mathematics. In summary the author indicated that he has important contributions
to the development of methods of teaching Bulgarian language and mathematics. In conclusion
she maintained that in the middle of the twentieth century his ideas are highly appreciated andinfluenced to the other scholars in this area.
204	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  In conclusion, each of the authors strongly pointed his contributed to the development of theteaching methodology and the relevance of his ideas. But the studies are not enough to bring out
the Geraskov's fundamental ideas about design, technology and methodological requirements forlessons of particular subjects. The aim of the research paper is to presents his ideas about
particular methods of teaching Physics. The research should show another aspect of hispedagogical heritage and should enrich the Bulgarian historiography. Comparative analysis withpublications on the issues set for development of the Bulgarian pedagogic science and theactuality in the modern education system.
Scientific status of the teaching methodology by Mikhail Geraskov
Geraskov distinguishes didactics and methodology. He believes that didactics contains theory andprinciples of teaching methods. Teaching methodology contains theory and technique of teachingparticular subjects. He assumes that between didactics and methodology there is a direct
correlation. Teaching methodology has a specific task - to examine and specify the use of
didactic and pedagogical training rules in order to achieve the best educational outcomes. He
defines methodology as a special didactics (Geraskov, 1922, p. 3). His view is different from themodern educational theory (Radev, 2005). However his idea about the correlation theory –practice is important. This shows that his idea is still relevant today.
In his view, didactics modify the content according to the development of students. He argues
that it is impossible training to be tailored to the individuality of each student. However, it isnecessary to develop problems, according to the characteristics of the age groups. He makes thedivision according to the development of students and determines - Didactics of primary school,
Didactics of secondary school and Didactics of high school. Each of them has special task-driven
objectives. Compliance with the psychophysiological opportunities for students of different age
groups is important and necessary for the education. The author claims that pointing out that in
205	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  developing the science standards should specify the individuality of students (Geraskov, 1921, pp.
17-20).
This division can certainly be extrapolated as a correlation between didactics and methodology.
The following table (Table 1) represents the correlation theory – practice and the didactics
modify the content. Didactics of primary, secondary and high school in content are actually
modern subject theory. Although Geraskov puts them only according to age groups, he does notgive a prescription on curriculum. He recommends specific tasks to involve the organization,compliance with laws and application of specific methods. Such view is close to the modern
understanding of the relationship of the individual school didactics and methodologies. In firsthalf of the twentieth century the school levels of Bulgarian education were primary school,secondary school and high school. In his scientific concept Geraskov covers the entire education
system. In the modern concept of school didactics there is no such division, but similardifferentiation will contribute to improving the quality of education. His idea is modern. The
sciences principles should be according to the characteristics of the age groups. Dividing asystem into its separate parts is considered support to the proper organization of training and theuse of appropriate methods. In practice, each of the steps in education should be to promote thedevelopment of students. The educational goal is possible when educational system is consistent
with psychology of students. These conditions influence the quality of education.

206	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Table 1. The correlation between didactics and methodology

Characteristic of the scientific publication of Mikhail Geraskov in teaching methodology
In 1922 the first edition of the book of Mikhail Geraskov Methodology for primary andsecondary education which is a guide for students in Teachers' institutes, schools, teachers andself-improvement was released. It is dedicated to the methodology of the particular subjects. The
book was reprinted four times consecutively, the second edition was in 1924, the third in 1928
and the fourth - in 1942. This shows the best estimate, which is given to the work of Geraskov.
Each edition is tailored to the school curriculum of the Bulgarian educational system and changes
in it. In 1946 the book was published under the title Methods of subjects in school.
The period was characterized by the development and influence of Herbartianism and European
reforming education. In the first half of the twentieth century in the pedagogical literature wasusing the methodologies of Stephan Basarichek (1848-1918) and Todor Benev (1861 -?).
Basarichek was a Croatian educator, lecturer in a teaching school in Zagreb, where he trained
many Bulgarians, who would later work in the field of education. He was a follower of
Herbartianism. His views had a strong influence on the Bulgarian educational thought andpractice to the spread of Herbartianism immediately after the Liberation. His scientific
207	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  publication was translated into Bulgarian. During this period, many pedagogical literature andbooks of Basarichek were used for pedagogical disciplines teaching future teachers. In period
1903-1906 were published three volumes of the book by Todor Benev, Sava Velev (1869-1913)
and Vasil Nikolchov (1873 -?). They are dedicated to pedagogy, didactics, teaching methodology
and history of education. The second volume is Methodology. Benev is entirely in the spirit of
Herbartianism specific instructions and followed the instructional models of education. During
this period, only individual articles existed in Bulgaria, many of which were devoted to themethodology in the primary school. This is inherently Geraskov’s great contribution to thedevelopment not only of the methodology, but also of the didactics and pedagogy in general. He
presents his personal position depending on the Bulgarian reality and educational system.
In the preface to the first edition, Geraskov (1922, pp. 1-2) points out the reasons which prompted
him to write this paper. The Bulgarian educational print often considered questions ofmethodology in different subjects, but they were isolated and represented separate and distinct
concepts. The purpose of his work is to give a global and contemporary view, which serves toprepare future teachers and those who seek to enhance their pedagogical training - for selfeducation of teachers.
In considering methodological issues in individual subjects Geraskov adopts an idea about the
subject of the special methodology. In characteristic style Geraskov presents the development ofideas and confirmation of each subject in historical aspect. He points out specific objectives andtasks of the subjects, starting from general educational purposes, the place they occupy in the
curriculum and requirements for the selection and order of the material. To achieve his intention
Geraskov presents views on the conduct of individual units’ methodological subjects andrecommends concrete implementation of teaching methods and forms. He emphasizes therelationship with psychology, while examining the methodology and presentation of various
subjects puts particular emphasis on the psychophysiological basis of the student. To achieve
208	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  educational goals and the examination of theory and Geraskov shows that a good methodology
and application of each method is in direct correlation with the knowledge of the field of
psychology. He focuses on the educational and practical importance of each subject. He presents
in detail the particular methodological design of a learning unit.
The historical context of the relationship between didactics and methodology is amended in theprocess of building a system of pedagogical sciences. This is indicated by modern scholars of
Bulgarian pedagogy for example Petar Petrov. In the first half of the twentieth century and before
that, methodology is accepted as a normative part of the pedagogical theory and its content
presents primarily the specific guidance for teaching (Petrov, 1998, pp. 16-17). This aspect shows
the idea about the subject and tasks of the special methodology. The structure is consistent of thepresentation and the importance of the subject key concepts associated with it and its
development as a science.
Geraskov briefly presents the evolution of ideas and presentation of each subject in historicalaspect which is a characteristic of his style of writing. He points out specific objectives and tasksof subjects determined by the total educational purposes. He presents his position about the
curriculum and requirements for the selection and order of the knowledge. Geraskov expresses
views on the conduct of teaching particular subjects and recommends specific application ofteaching methods. This is determined by the compliance and implementation of the principles of
education. He emphasizes the relationship with psychology and methodology in addressing thevarious subjects and puts particular emphasis on the psychophysiological progress of students. He
thinks that the best methodology and application of each method is in a direct correlation with theknowledge of psychology. It is important for the educational purpose. He also focuses on the
educational and practical significance of each school subject (Geraskov, 1946).

209	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  The meaningful analysis of his scientific publication focuses to this problem, in conclusion to thatthe author consistently adopts his instructional model of education with the four steps in teaching.
They are:•definition of the aim of the lesson•

preparation for teaching the new curriculum material•

teaching new knowledge•

practice knowledge

He adopts a direct relationship between school levels. This is clearly expressed in the setting ofindividual goals and objectives of training in each subject. He focuses on the methodology ofprimary school, as it laid the foundations of the education of young people, particularly in reading,writing and arithmetic, which are not only skills necessary for personal and social development ofadolescents, but also a prerequisite for higher knowledge scientific fields. Geraskov puts tocorrelation emphasizes theory – practice (Geraskov, 1921, p. 177).
His instructional model of education should not be directly related to the model of Herbartianism(see Table 2). He takes only a few aspects of this model. The direct correlation between schoollevels is pronounced by placing individual goals and objectives in teaching various subjects. The
three school levels of Bulgarian education, in this period, are primary school, secondary schooland high school. Each of them has specificity determined by the psychophysiological progress ofthe students. This determines differences in recommended methods. Also each subject area
requires the use of certain methods. This is especially true for the Natural Sciences of subjects inwhich Geraskov considered the most appropriate the use of the inductive method. In themethodological views of Geraskov thoroughly is presented the idea of the need to implement avariety of methods. For each school grade in different subjects, he indicates which methods andforms of training are best suited for use (Geraskov, 1944).
210	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL OFMIKHAIL GERASKOVTHE INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL OF
HERBARTIANISM

1. Definition of the aim of the lesson

1. Preparation

2. Preparation for teaching the new
curriculum material

2. Presentation

3. Teaching new knowledge

3. Association

4. Practice knowledge

4. Generalization
5. Application

Table 2. Similarities and differences between the two instructional models of education

Teaching methodology of Physics
Geraskov’s ideas support the development of Bulgarian pedagogical thought; more specifically,
he develops methods of teaching particular subjects for high school. It is because in the first halfof the twentieth century different scientific publications focus on the methodology for primaryschool. Contrary to Geraskov in their issues on the methods of teaching particular subjects
including the three school levels which are primary school, secondary school and high school. In
his methodical recommendations on particular subjects, briefly, specifying certain teaching
methods and forms suitable for use in the high school. He believes that the appropriate methods
are determined by the curriculum, set of educational goals and age characteristics, andcapabilities of adolescents. In his methodical recommendations he focuses on teaching methods
and forms that provoke students’ activity. This implies to a greater degree the use of heuristic
learning and development. Along with the induction for this school degree he recommends more
frequent use of deductive method. He emphasizes the need for the exercise of inductive reasoning.
Educational content and underlying educational purpose suggested enriching student’s awarenessthrough presenting a clear realistic picture and knowledge in various scientific fields in asystematic form. The knowledge must be practical and focused. Geraskov (1946, p. 84) stated
211	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  that, “Methods of teaching must influence the feelings of the students and their critical attitude
towards things in public life”.
The educational aim of Physics in high schools is to acquire knowledge of science, scientificmethods of observation and study. Physics is an inductive science. This science is the result of
inductive reasoning. Thus, according to Geraskov teaching Physics must be based on theexperiment. The main method of teaching Physics is induction and parallel with it is theanalytical method. Geraskov determines the methods of teaching. They are direct instructional
method, induction and deduction. In that process, experience is not mere observation, susceptible
to the tricks of our perception, but is based on systematic observation, comparison andverification. The experiments should be conducted exclusively for the purpose of observation andinformation gathering, followed by the formalization of knowledge (Geraskov, 1928, p. 173).
Geraskov believes in the importance of achieving greater connection between educational
purpose, theories and practices on Physics education. He focuses on laboratory activities. The
teacher’s guidance and instruction have ranged from highly structured to open inquiry.
Laboratory activities’ goal is to promote central science education goals including: understandingof scientific consepts, development of scientific practical skills and problem – solving abilities,
and interest and motivation. Scholarly efforts have identified serious mismatches between goals
for science education and learning outcomes visible in school graduates (Geraskov, 1928, pp.
175-177).
The way people learn and process new information that they are taught is one of the many factorsthat makes each individual person unique. While some people learn quickly by actually
performing a task for themselves, others learn better by watching someone doing the task or bysimply hearing the task explained. The methods that each prefers for learning is known as theirown unique learning style. Geraskov believes for teachers’ understanding of their student’s
212	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  learning style can be the key to unlocking their full potential and making difficult concepts seemas easy as they can be. This methodological assumptions of Geraskov is determined by his ideasof significance of psychophysiological progress of students. The teacher must know their students(Geraskov, 1923).
In Physics education Geraskov stresses the value of laboratory experiment and activities,
demonstration and models. Therefore, graphic organizers are visual representations of knowledge
that can support theoretical knowledge. They provide a frame for teachers and students tovisually identify important facts, organize information, and record relationships between facts
and ideas. These tools help students to practice higher level thinking skills and apply these skills
to real world situations. Different demonstrations, models and experiments help students toremember information, understand how pieces of information are related, better understand thelearning material and engagement of multiple intelligences. They are especially effective in
explaining and illustrating abstract concepts (Geraskov, 1928, pp. 178-179). Geraskov creates thelesson plan for forming knowledge of Physics with the four steps in teaching. They are:•introduction•

engagement in physical experience•

performance characteristics make the phenomenon•

defined as the Physical law•

exercises

In his ideas about structure, technology and methodological requirements of lesson Geraskov
firstly sets teachers’ preparation and design of Physics lessons. It includes theoretical, practicaland methodological aspects. He pays particular attention to the methodology of the teacher about
the students’ understanding of physical truths and the causal relationships between them. The
second condition are teaching aids which are very important. Equipment is needed to produce
natural experiments. The experiments in the classrooms must be under school time. He
213	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  recommends selecting those that require less time and which are most accessible. In the statementof the new knowlegde the teacher makes first physical experience. The experiments are mademost often by the teacher, but where possible and appropriate to engage students. This isimportant for the active participation of the students in training. After performance the teacher
points characteristics the phenomenon and the comparison with other similar events. He specifies
the relationship and defines the physical law. In drawing a few truths in attempts to observe thesequence. Geraskov writes that the lessons of Physics cannot give an overall scheme, but thestatement should follow the main points. The practice knowledge is best if you allow students toperform exercises alone. This can be carried out through experiments with a total exposure to thematerial or items with practical significance. In this part of lesson, the teacher and the students
can make various experimentals. Thus Geraskov puts the emphasis on students' activity. He
recommends that outside school hours are appropriate for students to visit places in which to see
the practical application of Physics. Practical exercises in physics are important for education.
Unfortunately, Geraskov says, most schools do not have the necessary facilities. It is importantthat these exercises allow students to make at least the most important attempts. Empiricalknowledge is very important in learning of Physics (Geraskov, 1928, p. 177). These ideas areclose to modern methodology. This highlights the principle of transparency, which is expressedby Geraskov. His ideas are interesting and contemporary. They may support improving thequality of education.
The hygienic working conditions that adversely affect the physiological status of students arevery important (Geraskov, 1928, p. 188). In education these subjects presented the idea ofenvironmental and health education, which requires pupils to form a conscious and caring
attitude towards their own health and the environment with all its components - physical,
chemical, biological, cultural, historical and others. It puts the other cross-curricular education,
which as mentioned is expressed as an idea by Geraskov. The idea that physics is an inductive
214	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  science and focus on the physical experiment in education is in modern pedagogical science(Raykova, 2008). This implies respect for visual principle. M. Geraskov requirements onteacher’s education for the learning process have now become outdated. However, the planningand execution of specific physical experiments for achieve clear and thorough knowledge of thestudents are important points. The idea of Geraskov for activity in the training of students is still
current today. Their participation in the conduct of specific experiments, either alone or with theteacher is important.
Methodological concepts and requirements that are present in modern methods show that theideas of Mikhail Geraskov in this aspect are still relevant. Today it is recognized that the practicalexperience requirement is related to the logical structure of the curriculum and meets the purposeof the experiment. Proper organization of supervision during the event is important to direct
properly the attention of the students. Emphasis is placed and the optimum number ofexperiments and preliminary preparation of teachers for the experimental part of a lesson. It helps
to perform successful and safe experiments. This is connected with the right technique. Clearly
expressed is the idea of teaching students to independence of thought and action, giving them theopportunity to perform experiments under the instructions of the teacher. The training
presentation of the material should be presented according to age groups - in a narrative or alecture form, which is preferred in the high school, in parallel with the discussions it is important
to combine demonstration of experiments and other visual aids.
In general, these requirements are expressed today in the methods of teaching Physics; they are
similar to those posed for the Bulgarian teachers from the first half of the twentieth century when
the importance of educational resources was also stressed. Although Geraskov defines them ashigh school requirements. The model of learning in modern education is different in degree fromthat of Geraskov’s. However his idea of the place of experiment in the exhibition of new teaching

215	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  material is preserved today. The methodology of training as the most effective approach isconsidered a removal of physical laws and rules of the experiment.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  

The Physics classroom in the 1930s

Scientific production of Mikhail Geraskov

www.lostbulgaria.com

Photo by: M. Ilieva

Conclusion
The contribution of Mikhail Geraskov in the methods of teaching particular subjects can be seen
in several aspects. In the time in which he lived and worked, the Bulgarian pedagogical thought
experienced a deficit in its methodological developments. Geraskov fills this gap and it worked
very well. His Methodology was reprinted several times and is one of the main guidelines forschools to prepare teaching staff. His ideas were highly appreciated and influenced otherresearchers in this field. He makes a significant contribution to the development of teaching
methodology of the high school. He believes in basic principle which emphasize that the schoolorganization must be determined by the specifics of the students’ specifics. He presents his
personal position. He does not fully accept the ideas of Herbartianism. He wishes themethodological recommendations are guiding thought for teachers in organizing and
216	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  implementing their practical work, as well as an objective criterion for discussion of issues in thisarea. One of the major achievements of Mikhail Geraskov is improvement of methodology for
Bulgarian school. He made valuable contributions to science. Before 1950's he was the mentor
for scholars who worked on this topic.
The educational politics in Bulgaria for the past 20 years has been focused on improving thequality of education, in particular through increasing the capacity for teaching. One of thestrategies to improve the quality of Bulgarian education is to establish teaching practices thatallow a greater interaction between the teacher and the student, so as to assure a constantmonitoring of the teaching and learning process in order to quickly identify problems and tosupport students that may face difficulties. The others strategies are to focus on the learning
process of each and every student and to establish mechanisms for the participation of thestudents in the education. The History can teach us. Geraskov’s views of methodology in the highschool are actuality in the modern educational system. There is a significant similarity with theideas in modern education. In conclusion his ideas are relevant to contemporary educational
practice. The model of learning in modern education is different in a degree from that ofGeraskov’s. However his idea of the place of experiment in the exhibition of new teachingmaterial is preserved (today). His methodological recommendations are relevant for thecontemporary Bulgarian education.
	
  
	
  

References
Antonova, L. (1983), The methodological heritage of Geraskov about learning Chemistry. In:
Biology and Chemistry. Vol. 6. Sofia: Press Ministry of education [in Bulgarian].

217	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Geraskov, M. (1921), The Didatics or the theory of training. Vratza: St. Tzekov Press [inBulgarian].
Geraskov, M. (1922), Methodology for primary and secondary education. Vratza: St. Tzekov
Press [in Bulgarian].
Geraskov, M. (1923), Learning of students in high schools from didactic perspective. Vratza: St.
Tzekov Press [in Bulgarian].
Geraskov, M. (1928), Methodology for primary and secondary education. 3rd ed. Vratza: St.
Tzekov Press [in Bulgarian].
Geraskov, M. (1944), The basics of Didactics. 2nd ed. Plovdiv: H.G.Danov Press [in Bulgarian].
Geraskov, M. (1946), Methods of subjects in school. Sofia: Hemus Press [in Bulgarian].
Gulabova, М. (2005), Learning of Particular subject in Methodology by Mikhail Geraskov. In:
National Scientific Session “Pedagogical Contributions”. Veliko Tarnovo: Univ. Press St.
Cyril and St. Methodius, pp. 147-150 [in Bulgarian].
Ilieva, M. (2012), Mikhail Geraskov (1874-1957) methodological concept of learning Bulgarian
language and mathematics. In: Year-book of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”,
Faculty of Pedagogy, Book – Pedagogy. Vol. 104. Sofia: Univ. Press St. Kliment Ohridski[in Bulgarian].
Yordanova, D. (2005), Look at the methodological views of Mikhail Geraskov about learning
Pronounce in elementary school during the first half of the twentieth century. In: National
Scientific Session “Pedagogical Contributions”. Veliko Tarnovo: Univ. Press St. Cyril andSt. Methodius, pp. 82-86 [in Bulgarian].
Petrov, P. (1998), Didactics. Sofia: Veda Slovena – JG Press [in Bulgarian].
218	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Petrova, Z. (2005), The fundamental aspects to language learning in the methodological work ofProfessor Mikhail Geraskov. In: National Scientific Session “Pedagogical Contributions”.
Veliko Tarnovo: Univ. Press St. Cyril and St. Methodius, pp. 115-122 [in Bulgarian].
Radev, P. (1988), Development of ideas about structure of educational process. Plovdiv: Univ.
Press Paisii Hilendarski [in Bulgarian].
Radev, P. (1999), Temathical indexes and paradigmas in Bulgarian workbooks and handbooks of
didactics. Plovdiv: Univ. Press Paisii Hilendarski [in Bulgarian].
Radev, P. (2002), History of Bulgarian education. Plovdiv: Univ. Press Paisii Hilendarski [inBulgarian].
Radev, P. (2005), General school didactics. Plovdiv: Univ. Press Paisii Hilendarski [inBulgarian].
Radeva, M. (2008), School history education in Bulgaria 1878-1944. Sofia: Gutenberg Press [inBulgarian].
Raykova, Z. (2008), Development procedural skills in science education – constructivist
approach. Plovdiv: Univ. Press Paisii Hilendarski [in Bulgarian].
Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” (1940), Almanac of Sofia University St. Kliment
Ohridski, 1888 – 1939. Sofia: Univ. Press. St. Kliment Ohridski [in Bulgarian].
	
  

219	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Guide for Authors
Article structure
Abstract
A concise and factual abstract is required (maximum length of 250 words). The abstract should
state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract
is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. For this reason,
References should be avoided, but if essential, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, nonstandard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined attheir first mention in the abstract itself.
Keywords
Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 6 keywords.
Introduction
Present purposes of the study and provide background for your work.
Literature Review
Include a pertinent literature review with explicit international connections for relevant ideas.
Discuss the findings of published papers in the related field and highlight your contribution.
Methodology and methods
Provide sufficient detail to allow the context of the work to be thoroughly understood and/or for
the work to be reproduced. Provide sufficient detail for readers to understand how you engaged inyour inquiry. Clear descriptions of your context and participants along with strategies used tocollect and analyze data should be described.
Discussion
220	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  This section should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them.
Combining your results and discussion into a single section may be suitable. Returning torelevant literature from the introduction should show how your work connects with or interrupts
already published literature.
Conclusions
The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a Conclusions section, which can include
the main findings, the implications, and limitations.
Appendices
If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B, etc.
Acknowledgements
Collate acknowledgements in a separate section at the end of the article before the references anddo not, therefore, include them on the title page, as a footnote to the title or otherwise. List here
those individuals who provided help during the research (e.g., providing language help, writing
assistance or proof reading the article, etc.).
Footnotes
Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the article, using
superscript Arabic numbers.
References
Citation in text
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and viceversa).
221	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Reference style
Text: Citations in the text should follow the referencing style used by the American
Psychological Association (APA). Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association, Sixth Edition, ISBN 978-1-4338-0561-5.
List: references should be arranged first alphabetically and then further sorted chronologically ifnecessary.
Reference to a journal publication:
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J. A. J., & Lupton, R. A. (2010). The art of writing a scientific article.
Journal of Scientific Communications, 163, 51–59.
Reference to a book:
Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style. (4th ed.). New York: Longman,(Chapter 4).
Reference to a chapter in an edited book:
Mettam, G. R., & Adams, L. B. (2009). How to prepare an electronic version of your article. In B.
S. Jones, & R. Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the electronic age (pp. 281–304). New York: EPublishing Inc.
Please follow the checklist:* Times New Roman font (size 12)* Double-spacing throughout the document; paragraphs, justify.
* Double space (instead of indent) to designate a new paragraph or section* Page numbers at the bottom center of each page
222	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  * Top, bottom, and side margins 0.87" or 2.2 cm* Page that includes title, authors, their affiliations, their contact information, and the topic of thesubmission* Authors and affiliations repeated at the beginning of the body of the paper* There is no limit of words or pages, but manuscript too short or incomplete will be rejected.
IAFOR Journal of Education is following the guidelines and advice proposed by top SSCI
academic journal Teaching and teacher Education on their website.

223