Home → Releases → № 4 (58) →

THE CONCEPT OF THE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM OF THE QUALITY OF THE PERSONALIZED EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IN THE CONDITIONS OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION

Pedagogical Education , UDC: 37.04 DOI: 10.25688/2076-9121.2021.58.4.02

Authors

  • Komarov Roman Vladimirovich Associate Professor, PhD in Psychology
  • Vostorgova Elena Vladimirovna Ph.D. in Pedagogy, Ph.D. in Pedagogy
  • Komarova Darya Sergeevna
  • Kravchenko Olga Sergeevna

Annotation

Based on the system methodology, activity approach and analysis of modern approaches to the personalization of the educational process, the article presents a conceptual and ontological model of the system for diagnosing the quality of the educational environment, focused on personalized learning of schoolchildren in the conditions of additional education, including technical orientation. An overview of the measurement tools developed over the past three years and used in practice in different countries, designed to assess the specific and generalized aspects of the quality of the educational environment, is given. The project framework was introduced, in the context of which the author's concept of diagnosing the quality of the educational environment focused on personalized learning of schoolchildren in the conditions of additional education was developed (the concept). The basic concepts of the system methodology are revealed, on the basis of which the semantic concepts of the concept are interpreted: the educational environment and its quality; the student as an object of influence of the educational environment and the subject of selfdetermination in it; comprehensive satisfaction of educational needs as a focused useful result, etc. The specifics of the system of additional education, the principles of its construction, and the psychological and pedagogical phenomena revealed in additional education are described from a systematic point of view through the characteristics of openness and negentropy. In questions about the individualization and personalization of the educational process, an overview of existing approaches and models in this regard is given, as well as a 3D-model of the space of interpretations of the concept of personalization of learning, which removes existing contradictions, and an attempt to classify the types of educational requests of students in the system of additional education in relation to the concepts of “differentiation”, “individualization” and “personalization”. Based on the dimensional ontology, an attempt is made to construct a conceptual 3D-model of the structure of the personalized educational environment of the system of additional education, including components (subject-spatial, organizational-pedagogical, key participants of the educational process and the content of learning) and reflecting specific qualitative characteristics of the educational environment, such as: comfort and safety, enriching and variable potential, developing and personality-oriented potential.
Tags:
additional education , diagnostics , dimensional ontology , individualization , personalization , quality of the educational environment , subjectivity , system

How to link insert

Komarov, R. V., Vostorgova, E. V., Komarova, D. S. & Kravchenko, O. S. (2021). THE CONCEPT OF THE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM OF THE QUALITY OF THE PERSONALIZED EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IN THE CONDITIONS OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 4 (58), . https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2021.58.4.02
References
1. 1. Sen, A. I., Ertas-Kılıc, H., Oktay, O. et al. (2021). Learning science outside the classroom: development and validation of the out-of-school learning environments perception scale. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 24, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-020-00070-7
2. 2. Zandvliet, D. B., Stanton, A., & Dhaliwal, R. (2019). Design and Validation of a Tool to Measure Associations between the Learning Environment and Student Well-Being: The Healthy Environments and Learning Practices Survey (HELPS). Innov High Educ, 44, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9462-6
3. 3. Lee, P. M. J., & Quek, C. L. (2018). Preschool teachers’ perceptions of school learning environment and job satisfaction. Learning Environ Res, 21, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9256-7
4. 4. Koul, R. B., Fraser, B. J., Maynard, N. et al. (2018). Evaluation of engineering and technology activities in primary schools in terms of learning environment, attitudes and understanding. Learning Environ Res, 21, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9255-8
5. 5. Marcarini M. (2021). Pedarchitecture: Which Learning Environments for the Personalisation of Teaching and Learning? An Educational Architecture for the Schools of the Future. In W. Imms, & T. Kvan (Eds.). Teacher Transition into Innovative Learning Environments. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_8
6. 6. Starkey, L., Leggett, V., Anslow, C. et al. (2021). The Use of Furniture in a Student-Centred Primary School Learning Environment. NZ J Educ Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00187-9
7. 7. Bonem, E. M., Fedesco, H. N., & Zissimopoulos, A. N. (2020). What you do is less important than how you do it: the effects of learning environment on student outcomes. Learning Environ Res, 23, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09289-8
8. 8. Nyabando, T., & Evanshen, P. (2021). Second Grade Students’ Perspectives of Their Classrooms’ Physical Learning Environment: A Multiple Case Study. Early Childhood Educ J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01183-4
9. 9. Sigurðardóttir, A. K. (2018). Student-Centred Classroom Environments in Upper Secondary School: Students’ Ideas About Good Spaces for Learning Versus Actual Arrangements. In L. Benade, M. Jackson (Eds.). Transforming Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_12
10. 10. Bertalanffy, L. von (1962). General System Theory — A Critical Review. General Systems, VII, 1–20.
11. 11. Anokhin, P. K. (1973). Fundamental questions of the general theory of functional systems. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.). https://keldysh.ru/pages/BioCyber/RT/Functional.pdf
12. 12. Khaken, G. (1980). Synergetics. Moscow: Mir. (In Russ.)
13. 13. Lomov, B. F. (1984). Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. Moscow: Science. (In Russ.)
14. 14. Platonov, K. K. (1972). On the system of psychology. Moscow: Thought. (In Russ.)
15. 15. Shchedrovitskii, G. P. (1995). Selected Works. Moscow: Shk. Kulʼt. Polit. (In Russ.)
16. 16. Uemov, A. I. (1978). System approach and general theory of systems. Moscow: Thought. (In Russ.).
17. 17. Ryzhov, B. N. (2017). System psychology (2-nd ed.). Moscow: Publishing Technologies. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29949791
18. 18. Tiukov, A. A. (2011). Developmental psychology in the modern anthropology complex. Systems Psychology and Sociology, 3, 18–38. (In Russ.). http://www.systempsychology.ru/journal/2011_3/50-tyukov-aa-psihologiya-razvitiya-v-komplekse-sovremennoyantropologii.html
19. 19. Andrews, K., & Willis, J. (2019). Imaginings and Representations of High School Learning Spaces: Year 6 Student Experiences. In H. Hughes, J. Franz, J. Willis (Eds.) School Spaces for Student Wellbeing and Learning. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6092-3_5
20. 20. Rubinshtein, S. L. (1960). The problem of abilities and questions of psychological theory. Voprosy Psychologii, 3, 3–15. (In Russ.). http://www.metodolog.ru/01187/01187.html
21. 21. Leont’ev, A. N. (1975). Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow: Politizdat. (In Russ.). https://www.marxists.org/russkij/leontiev/1975/dyeatyelnost/deyatyelnostsoznyanie-lichnost.pdf
22. 22. Raufelder, D., & Kulakow, S. (2021). The role of the learning environment in adolescents’ motivational development. Motiv Emot, 45(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09879-1
23. 23. Maslou, A. (2003). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Saint Petersburg: Piter. (In Russ.)
24. 24. Komarov, R. V., Vostorgova, E. V., Komarova, D. S., & Syshchenko, A. K. (2018). Fusion-Model of Career Guidance at Inmates of Orphanages in the Conditions of Additional Education. Vestnik of Moscow City University. Series «Pedagogy and Psychology», 4(46), 64–74. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2018.46.4.06
25. 25. Mudrik, A. V. (Ed.) (2004). Social education in institutions of additional education for children. Moscow: Academy. (In Russ.)
26. 26. Komarov, R. V. (2013). The role of supplementary education system in development of giftedness in school-students. Systems Psychology and Sociology, 8, 79–88. (In Russian). http://www.systempsychology.ru/journal/2013_8/155-komarov-rv-rol-sistemy-dopolnitelnogo-obrazovaniya-v-razvitii-odarennosti-uchaschihsya.html
27. 27. Panjaburee, P., & Srisawasdi, N. (2016). An integrated learning styles and scientific investigation-based personalized web approach: a result on conceptual learning achievements and perceptions of high school students. J. Comput. Educ., 3, 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0066-1
28. 28. Alamri, H. A., Watson, S., & Watson, W. (2021). Learning Technology Models that Support Personalization within Blended Learning Environments in Higher Education. TechTrends, 65, 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00530-3
29. 29. Chyrkс, P., Gałecka, J., Guzik, A. et al. (2015). The Book of Trends in Education 2.0. Young Digital Planet SA a Sanoma Company. https://www.ydp.eu/assets/pdf/The-Book-of-Trends-in-Education-2.0-YDP.pdf
30. 30. Tetzlaff, L., Schmiedek, F. & Brod, G. (2020). Developing Personalized Education: A Dynamic Framework. Educ Psychol Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09570-w
31. 31. Komenskij Ya. A. (1939). Great Didactics. State Educational and Pedagogical Publishing House of the People’s Commissariat of the RSFSR. (In Russ.).
32. 32. Komarov, R. V., & Kovaleva, T. M. (2021). Personalization of the Educational Process: 3D Space of Interpretations. Vestnik of Moscow City University. Series «Pedagogy and Psychology», 1, 8–22. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2021.55.1.01
33. 33. Frankl, V. (1990). Man in search of meaning. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.).
34. 34. Komarov, R. V. (2017). Psychological 3D Model of giftedness. Psychology of giftedness and creativity. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29979326
35. 35. Abbott, D., Jeffrey, S., Gouseti, A., Burden, K., & Maxwell, M. (2017). Development of Cross-Curricular Key Skills Using a 3D Immersive Learning Environment in Schools. In D. Beck et al. (Eds.). Immersive Learning Research Network. iLRN 2017. (Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 725). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60633-0_6
36. 36. Dempster, N., Townsend, T., Johnson, G., Bayetto, A., Lovett, S., & Stevens, E. (2017). Establishing Positive Conditions for Learning. Leadership and Literacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54298-0_7
Download file .pdf 1.43 Mb