2313-8971Research result. Pedagogy and Psychology of Education2313-89711210CREATIVITY IN THE UNIVERSITY TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIACREATIVITY IN THE UNIVERSITY TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIACvetkovicRaisaCvetkovicRaisavinica@ptt.rsPopilNatalija VasiljevnaPopilNatalija Vasiljevnafi-al-ka@yandex.ruMilenovichZHivoradMilenovichZHivoradzivorad.milenovic@pr.ac.rs20173300

The problem of this research is the creative approach to the teaching of the Russian language at the Universities of the Republic of Serbia. As a starting point, it was generally assumed that creativity as a basic element and the most important condition for the development of higher education makes a significant contribution to the effectiveness of teaching the Russian language, as well as the assumption that the study will establish the absence of a significant difference in the assessment of student respondents on the effectiveness of teaching and educational process from creativity and creativity in the teaching of the Russian language, depending on the course and performance of students for the entire period of study in this University. In order to achieve the set goals, in the first half of 2017, a group of 62 respondent students from the Pedagogical Faculty in Prizren (Republic of Serbia) participated in the study presented in this article. The information obtained from the study was processed by the VOEK-HPJ scale using a variation and did not show statistically significant differences in the results of the four groups of students depending on the training course: F (3.58) = 2.12, p = 0.107 and overall success by years of study: F (2.59) = 2.66, p = 0.078 with respect to their assessment of the dependence of the effectiveness of the educational process on imagination and creativity in the teaching of the Russian language.

The problem of this research is the creative approach to the teaching of the Russian language at the Universities of the Republic of Serbia. As a starting point, it was generally assumed that creativity as a basic element and the most important condition for the development of higher education makes a significant contribution to the effectiveness of teaching the Russian language, as well as the assumption that the study will establish the absence of a significant difference in the assessment of student respondents on the effectiveness of teaching and educational process from creativity and creativity in the teaching of the Russian language, depending on the course and performance of students for the entire period of study in this University. In order to achieve the set goals, in the first half of 2017, a group of 62 respondent students from the Pedagogical Faculty in Prizren (Republic of Serbia) participated in the study presented in this article. The information obtained from the study was processed by the VOEK-HPJ scale using a variation and did not show statistically significant differences in the results of the four groups of students depending on the training course: F (3.58) = 2.12, p = 0.107 and overall success by years of study: F (2.59) = 2.66, p = 0.078 with respect to their assessment of the dependence of the effectiveness of the educational process on imagination and creativity in the teaching of the Russian language.

the Russian languagecreativityteachingwork of teacher’s styleeducational efficiencystudent’s successthe Russian languagecreativityteachingwork of teacher’s styleeducational efficiencystudent’s successСписок литературыAzimova N., Johnston B. Invisibility and Command of Language: Problems of Representation in Russian Language Textbooks // The Modern Language Journal. 2012. 96(3). Pp. 337-349. Russian.Dolzhikova A. The Russian Language Testing and Integrated Examination for Foreign Citizens in Russia: Legislation Background and Legal Regulation Specific Features // International Education Studies. 2015. 8(3). Pp. 193-201. Russian.Kamalova L., Zakirova V. Peculiarities of Teaching the Russian Language to Children of Immigrants // The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 2016. 11(7). Pp. 1657-1699. Russian.Kemppainen R., Hilton S., Rannut, Ü. Ethnic Identification and School Language of Russian-Speaking Students in Estonia // The Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. 2015. 14(5). Pp. 336-353.Kiilo T., Kutsar D. When Language becomes Power: Russian-Speaking Teachers in the Bilingual General Education System in Estonia // The British Journal of Sociology of Education. (2012). 33(2). Pp. 245-262.Zakirova V., Kamalova L. Methods of Work with Pupils-Immigrants at Russian Language Lessons in Primary School. The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 2016. 11(14). Pp. 6357-6372. Russian.Mak W., Tribushinina E., Lomako J., Gagarina N., Abrosova E., Sanders T. Connective Processing by Bilingual Children and Monolinguals with Specific Language Impairment: Distinct Profiles // The Journal of Child Language. 2017. 44 (2). Pp. 329-345. Russian.Milenovich Zh. Factors of educational impact on geopolitical and extraterrestrial changes in the world. Bashtina. 2016. 26(41). Pp. 233-249.Milenovich Zh., Popil' N. The use of innovative methods of teaching a different level of complexity in the teaching of language and literature in primary school. Materials of the Teachers’ Training Faculty in Prizren - Leposavic. 2016. 12(6). Pp. 359-362.Pavlenko A., Volynsky M. Motion Encoding in Russian and English: Moving beyond Talmy's Typology // The Modern Language Journal. 2015. 99(1). Pp. 32-48. Russian.Ponomareva L., Churilina L., Buzhinskaya D., Derevskova E., Dorfman O., Sokolova E. The Russian National Corpus as a Tool of Linguo-Didactic Innovation in Teaching Languages // The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 2016. 11(18). Pp. 13043-13053.Ulicheva A., Coltheart M., Saunders S., Perry C. Phonotactic Constraints: Implications for Models of Oral Reading in Russian // The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2016. 42(4). Pp. 636-656.