Authors
- Shagiakhmetova Minzilya Niyazovna
- Zakirova Venera Gilmkhanovna Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor
Annotation
The reflexive assessment of pedagogical practices by their participants is an underestimated component of the sustainable development of the educational process in higher education. Currently, there is a need to develop and implement various forms of feedback that will contribute to the qualitative analysis of the passage of pedagogical practice to ensure the successful adaptation of students to professional activities, academic performance of students and their psychological safety. The purpose of this study is to describe and comprehensively analyze the basic requirements and expectations of participants in pedagogical practice, which should be taken into account by an educational organization. During the study, methods of theoretical and empirical data collection were used. To achieve the goal of scientific work, all participants of pedagogical practice were interviewed: student interns, heads of practices, including from specialized organizations, heads of educational institutions. The conducted survey made it possible to make a thorough analysis of the basic requirements of future primary school teachers for the organization of pedagogical practices. The results of the study are supposed to be applied in the formation of practical proposals aimed at improving the organization of pedagogical practice in higher educational institutions. The relevant results can serve as a basis for the formation of ideas regarding the practical training of persons studying at a higher educational institution, the definition of problematic aspects of the functioning of the university for further improvement.
How to link insert
Shagiakhmetova, M. N. & Zakirova, V. G. (2023). REFLEXIVE ASSESSMENT OF PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS BY THEIR PARTICIPANTS Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 17(2), 80. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2023.17.2.04
References
1.
1. Slastenin, V. A. (2008). Personality-oriented technologies of professional and pedagogical education. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 1, 49–74.
2.
2. Abdullina, O. A. (1989). General pedagogical teacher training in the system of higher pedagogical education. Moscow: Prosveshchenie. 139 p.
3.
3. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, K. A. (1980). Activity and personality psychology. Moscow: Nauka. 335 p.
4.
4. Orlov, A. A. (2000). Standards of higher pedagogical education: ways of improvement. Pedagogy, 2, 48–51.
5.
5. Gluzman, A. B. (1996). University pedagogical education: experience of system research. Monograph. Kiev: Prosvita. 312 p.
6.
6. Zagrekova, L. V., & Nikolina, V. V. (2004). Theory and technology of training. Moscow: Higher school. 92 p.
7.
7. Takisheva, G. A., & Uysinbayeva, G. N. (2017). Professional growth of a teacher in the context of the introduction of new educational standards. Science and the World, vol. 2, 10(50), 30–32.
8.
8. Kuzmina, N. V. (1990). Professionalism of the personality of the teacher and the master of industrial training. Moscow: Higher school. 238 p.
9.
9. Zeer, E. F. (2017). Psychological and pedagogical platform for the formation of transprofessionalism of a teacher of vocational education. Vocational education. STOLITSA, 6, 5–9.
10.
10. Brockx, B., Spooren, P., & Mortelmans, D. (2011). Taking the grading leniency story to the edge. The influence of student, teacher, and course characteristics on student evaluations of teaching in higher education. Educational assessment, evaluation and accountability, 23, 289–306.
11.
11. Krautmann, A. C., & Sander, W. (1999). Grades and student evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review, 18, 59–63.
12.
12. McPherson, M. A., Jewell, R. T., & Kim, M. (2009). What Determines Student Evaluation Scores? A Random Effects Analysis of Undergraduate Economics Classes. Eastern Economic Journal, 35, 37–51.
13.
13. Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2001) Looking for Bias in All the Wrong Places: A Search for Truth or a Witch Hunt in Student Ratings of Instruction. New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 45–46.
14.
14. Heckert, T. M., Latimer, A., Ringwald, A., & Silvey, B. (2006). Relation of course, instructor, and student characteristics to dimensions of student ratings of teaching effectiveness. College Student Journal, 40(1), 195–203.
15.
15. Zerihun, Z., Beishuizen, J., Van, & Os, W. (2012). Student learning experience as indicator of teaching quality. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 99–111.
16.
16. Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective, 319–383.
17.
17. Haladyna, T. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). Validation of a research-based student survey of instruction. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(3), 255–276.
18.
18. Spooren, P., Mortelmans, D., & Denekens, J. (2007). Student evaluation of teaching quality in higher education. Development of an instrument based on 10 Likert scales. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 667–679.
19.
19. Safavid, S. A., Bakar, K. А., Tarmizi, R. A., & Alwi, N. H. (2013). Faculty perception of improvements to instructional practices in response to student ratings. Educational Assessment Evaluation Accountability, 25, 143–153.
20.
20. McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W. Jr., & Simpson, A. (2014). Workplace self-expansion: Implications for job satisfaction, commitment, self-concept clarity and self-esteem among the employed and unemployed. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 59–69.