Many difficulties for the dissertation also arise in the construction of their own classifications. Consider this example. One graduate student offered the following “blocks” (directions) of professional and pedagogical training of students of the pedagogical institute: activity, behavioral, cognitive, reflexive, emotional. At the same time, the content of these “blocks” was revealed quite interestingly. But such their allocation can hardly be considered at least somehow justified, since, firstly, under this listing, it is obviously impossible to lay any basis for classification. Secondly, judging by the name, the first “block” should “swallow” a number of others. For example, behavior is an external manifestation of activity; cognition (cognitive “block”) is one of the activities; emotions in general can hardly be put on a par with activity, since emotions are one of the forms of mental reflection. Thus, in this enumeration of the “blocks” came the unrelated, heterogeneous concepts.
As in the famous joke A.P. Chekhov: “It was raining and two students.” In this case, one could try to build these “blocks” (directions) by main types of activity. As is known, there are five of them: value-oriented, cognitive, transformative (divided according to one basis of classification into productive, creative and reproductive, according to another basis into projective and practical), communicative (communication) and aesthetic. Sometimes as a separate type of activity, physical (motor) activity is distinguished. Or try to build a classification basis on a different principle through the structure of a person’s self-consciousness, including professional-pedagogical self-consciousness, etc.
Often there is another option, when a graduate student, an applicant in the process of research has to single out some combination of personal qualities, properties of the educational process, characteristics of some activity, etc. At the same time, it is extremely important to thoroughly justify such an aggregate, which is often not given the necessary attention. So, for example, in one dissertation research such a set of characteristics of pedagogical activity was singled out: purposefulness, functionality, problem, dynamism, openness, etc. Having outlined a similar set of characteristics, the author takes it as a basis and builds on it all subsequent work, including the experiment, up to the formulation of conclusions. But this aggregate is completely unjustified!
At least to begin with the fact that the presence in this enumeration of the abbreviation etc.” means that the author himself does not know where and what this combination will end at; after all, such a sequence can be continued for quite a long time, for example: structurality, manufacturability, predictability, communication And again, we will get and so on. In addition, any professional activity, and not only pedagogical, can obviously be characterized by such transfers. As a result, the legality of the conclusions obtained in such a work, to put it mildly, is extremely doubtful here we have a typical example of speculation in the original, scientific meaning of the word as an illegal speculative construction.