In the first part the author compares various definitions of the term »teaching method« and then analyses this term from the point of view of etymology, kybernetics, systems and dialectics. The result of the analysis in a definition in which the genus proximus is the »theoretical model of pedagogical activity of the teacher«, the diferentia specifica are then 1) realization of the aim, 2) multi-dimension and sociability, 3) systematism which does not exclude creative improvisation, 4) optimization of the relation between the efforts of the teacher and the pupil, 5) mutual conditioning of the contents and conditions of teaching, and 6) cycles of the basic phases of education. In the second part the author approaches the question of teaching methodics from the historical point of view. He stresses the need for dialectic synthesis of oil progressive elements, characterizing, the historical stages of pedagogical thought, starting with J. A. Comenius, whose opinions of teaching methods are in many aspects still topical. In the third part the author approaches the same problem from a comparative point of view and on the example of concurrences and differences between the didactic conception of L. V. Zankov and the didactic conception of J. Bruner points to the methodological possibilities of using this approach. It is clear that these two conceptions, although they preserve their characteristic traits, called forth without doubt by their historical and social foundation, have significant contiguous points which are the stressing of the pedagogical demands, the effectiveness and rationalization of the teaching process. Cognizance of the psychology of the child is naturally assumed, however, the function of psychology does no longer mean a limitation, the periods of development are no longer unsurmountable boundaries, but more of a starting point fo,r the educationalist directed towards the overcoming of these boundaries. Experiences with materiocentrism and with »childless« pedagogy must be sufficient guarantee that these new conceptions of »overcoming of boundaries « should not overcome the limits of their own possibilities and should not degenerate into a new materiocentrism or one-sided intellectualism.