Authors
- Igor Remorenko M. Associate Professor, Doctor of Education Sciences
- Kryuchkova Olga Nikolaevna
Annotation
The article addresses the problem of norms and rules governing the educational process, as well as issues of legislation in educational activities. Because of phenomenological analysis, the authors compare the methodological basis of the institutional approach with the dissemination of the ideas of developing education and the activity approach in educational practices. It has been concluded that the basic condition for the effective development of educational innovation practices is their constant correlation, dialogue with institutional norms, and their regulators. In addition, the authors have identified the main areas in the creation of developing education technology: 1) the establishment of criteria benchmarks for the normative results of the implementation of subject and metasubject educational tasks; 2) preparing teachers for a certain (different from traditional) role in the teaching process; 3) introduction of «big data» analysis (Big Data Analysis) into the educational process, since now different teaching methods are concentrated in various electronic environments and services.
How to link insert
Igor, R. M. & Kryuchkova, O. N. (2021). PROBLEMS OF INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF THE ACTIVITY APPROACH Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 4 (58), . https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2021.58.4.03
References
1.
1. Elkonin, D. B. (1989). Selected psychological works (Davydov V. V., & Zinchenko, V. P., Eds.). Moscow: Pedagogy. (In Russ.)
2.
2. Davydov, V. V. (1995). On the concept of developing education: collection of articles. Tomsk: Peleng. (In Russ.)
3.
3. Davydov, V. V. (1996). Theory of developing education. Moscow: INTOR. (In Russ.)
4.
4. Nechayev, N. N. (2015). A psychological mechanism for the development of activity: The cross-cultural context. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.006. (In Russ.)
5.
5. Wiens, P. Calkins, L., Yoder, P., & Hightower, A. (2021). Examining the relationship between instructional practice and social studies teacher training: A TALIS study. The Journal of Social Studies Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2021.05.006
6.
6. Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework. OECD Education Working Papers, 187. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/799337
7.
7. Borthwick, A. C., & Hansen, R. (2017). Digital literacy in teacher education: Are the teacher educators competent? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(2), 46–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1291249
8.
8. Crocco, M. S., & Livingston, E. (2017). Becoming an “expert” social studies teacher: What we know about teacher education and professional development. In M. M. Manfra, & C. M. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 360–384). Wiley Blackwell.
9.
9. Fonger, N., Stephens, A., Blanton, M., Isler, I., Knuth, E., & Gardiner, A. M. (2018). Developing a learning progression for curriculum, instruction, and student learning: An example from mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 36(1), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1392965
10.
10. Marx, K. (n. d.). To the criticism of the Hegelian philosophy of law. Civil Society in Russia: Scientific Electronic Library. https://www.civisbook.ru/files/File/Marks_K%20kriike.pdf (In Russ.).
11.
11. Davydov, V. V., & Repkin, V.V. (1997). Organization of developmental education in grades 5–9 of secondary school: Recommendations for teachers, school leaders and organs of ex. (?) education. Moscow: INTOR. (In Russ.)
12.
12. Vorontsov, A. B., & Chudinova, E. V. (2004). Educational activity: introduction to the system of D. B. Elkonin – V. V. Davydov. Moscow: A. I. Rasskazov. (In Russ.)
13.
13. Veblen, T. B. (2018). Engineers and the pricing system (Koshkina, I., Trans.; Smirnova, A., Ed.). Higher School of Economics. (Original work published 1921). (In Russ.)
14.
14. Lazarev, V. S. (2009). Generalized model of the innovation process. Municipal Formation: Innovation and Experiment, 3, 22–28. (In Russ.)
15.
15. European Educational Research Association — EERA. (2019). ECER 2019: Education in an Era of Risk — the Role of Educational Research for the Future (Hamburg, September 2–6) [Conference programme and app.]. https://eera-ecer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/ECER_Documents/ECER_Book_for_online_use_do_not_print.pdf
16.
16. The Government of British Columbia. (2019, July). BC’s Curriculum. Science: Science K-10 – Big Ideas. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/curriculum/continuous-views/en_science_k-10_big-ideas.pdf
17.
17. Kuhn, T. (2003). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Naletov, I. Z., Trans.; Kuznetsov, V. Yu., Comp.). (Original work published 1962). Moscow: AST. (In Russ.)
18.
18. Davydov, V. V. (1986). Developmental learning problems: the experience of theoretical and experimental psychological research. Moscow: Pedagogy. (In Russ.)
19.
19. Clarin, M. V. (2018). Innovative learning models: a study of world experience: monograph. Moscow: Luch. (In Russ.)