Authors
- Rekesheva Lilia Nailievna
Annotation
The article is devoted to the problem of organizing peer-to-peer learning in the distance system of professional development of teaching staff. On the basis of the conducted meta-analysis, methodological foundations were identified that make it possible to productively study the technologies of mutual learning in distance education for adults. The article substantiates the conclusion that in the field of additional education for adults there are two groups of multidirectional pedagogical factors: on the one hand, the need to use forms of organization of education, which are focused on maintaining the self-organization of students, which translates into stimulating joint forms of educational activity, and on the other — high complexity (and often impossibility) of organizing these forms for an educational organization. The technology of peer-to-peer learning itself is understood in the article as a form of organizing joint learning activities, in which peer-to-peer learning takes place in pairs, and the overall management of the organization of educational interaction is carried out by a teacher-moderator or LMS. The main objectives of the research were
experimental verification of the author’s model of using the peer learning model for distance training of teachers. The experimental sample consisted of 2590 people. The experimental results showed the effectiveness of the tested model.
How to link insert
Rekesheva, L. N. (2022). MODEL OF USE OF PEER-TO-PEER LEARNING TECHNOLOGY IN DISTANCE TRAINING OF TEACHERS Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 16(1), 197. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2022.16.1.11
References
1.
1. Zakharov, K. P. (2008). “Method of mutual learning” in the pedagogical activity of the Decembrists. Proceedings of the Russian State Pedagogical University. A. I. Herzen, 54, 365–373. (In Russ.).
2.
2. Dyachenko, V. K. (1991). Collaboration in teaching: On the collective method of teaching. Works. Moscow: Enlightenment. (In Russ.).
3.
3. Vinogradova, M. D., & Pervin, I. B. (1977). Collective cognitive activity and education of schoolchildren. From work experience. Moscow: Enlightenment. (In Russ.).
4.
4. Mkrtchyan, M. A. (1995). The 20th century — three stages in the formation of CSR ideas. Collective mode of learning, 1, 6–10. (In Russ.).
5.
5. Rubtsov, V. V. (1996). Social interactions and learning. Fundamentals of sociogenetic psychology: selected psychological works (pp. 10–27). Voronezh; Moscow. URL: http://www.psychlib.ru/inc/absid.php?absid=85891 (date of access: 07/19/2021). (In Russ.).
6.
6. Vykhrushch, V. A. (1986). The optimal combination of individual and collective forms of educational activity of younger schoolchildren. PhD Thesis. Kiev: Kiev State Pedagogical Institute. A. M. Gorky. (In Russ.).
7.
7. Liimets, H. J. (1975). Group work in the classroom. Moscow: Knowledge. (In Russ.).
8.
8. Polivanova, N. I., & Rivina, I. V. (1996). Principles and forms of organizing joint educational activities. Psychological Science and Education, 2, 42–53. (In Russ.).
9.
9. Panarina, S. S. (2017). Pedagogical conditions for the organization of joint educational activities of adults in the system of additional professional education. PhD Thesis. Voronezh: Voronezh State University. (In Russ.).
10.
10. Baloche, L., & Brody, C. M. (2017). Cooperative learning: exploring challenges, crafting innovations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(3), 274–283. http://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1319513
11.
11. Buchs, C., Filippoua, D., Pulfreyb, C., & Volpé, Y. (2017). Challenges for cooperative learning implementation: reports from elementary school teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(3), 296–306. http://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1321673
12.
12. Gianelli, M. (2018). E-learning in theory, practice and research. Questions of Education, 4, 81–98. URL: https://vo.hse.ru/data/2018/12/12/1144863086/05%20Janelli.pdf (date of access: 07/19/2021). (In Russ.).
13.
13. Legostaev, B. L. (2020). Virtual reality in assessing the quality of educational achievements. Global Research Capacity, 11(116), 43–46. (In Russ.).
14.
14. Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., & Vines, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235. http://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x
15.
15. Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. J. (2018). A System’s View of E-Learning Success Model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 16(1), 42–76. http://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12144
16.
16. Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
17.
17. Lamb, P., & King, G. (2021). Developing the practice of pre-service physical education teachers through a dyad model of lesson study. European Physical Education Review, 27(4), 944–960. http://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X211004628
18.
18. Mendes, P. C., Leandro, C. R., Campos, F., Fachada, M., Santos, A. P., & Gomes, R. (2021). Extended school time: Impact on learning and teaching. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 353–365. http://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.1.353
19.
19. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical principles of distance education. Ed. D. Keegan. London, New York: Routledge, P. 22–38.
20.
20. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426. http://doi.org/:10.2307/3250989
21.
21. Salleh, N. S. M. (2001). Practical teaching programme online: Overcoming communication issues — (learning from the experience of PKPG teaching practice website in UNIMAS). Internet and Higher Education, 4(3–4), 193–201. http://doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7516(01)00074-4
22.
22. Skinner, I., Ravishankar, J., & Dalton, H. (2017). Senior students as peer-teachers in laboratory classes: Impacts and insights. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 2016 IEEE. International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering, TALE 2016/2017, 323–327. http://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2016.7851815
23.
23. Krasheninnikova, L. V., & Zakharov, K. P. (2019). Application of methods of collective organizational form of learning in the digital educational environment. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 6, 56–67. http://doi.org/10.15293/1813-4718.1906.05
24.
24. Pérez-García, M. (2009). MUVEnation: A European peer-to-peer learning programme for teacher training in the use of MUVEs in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 561–567. http://doi.org/:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00951.x
25.
25. Borytko, N. M. (2001). A teacher in the spaces of modern education. Volgograd: Peremena. (In Russ.).