Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 7–24
UDC: 
378+147+88

Implementation of the didactic model of preparing students for innovative practice within the framework of continuing teacher education

Nagovitsyn R. S. 1 (Glazov, Russian Federation), Maksimov Y. G. 1 (Glazov, Russian Federation), Miroshnichenko A. A. 1 (Glazov , Russian Federation), Senator S. J. 2 (Moscow, Russian Federation)
1 Glazov State Pedagogical Institute
2 Moscow Social Pedagogical Institute
Abstract: 

Introduction. A considerable amount of scientific literature has been published on the issues of competence-based approach to higher education, but the creation of a didactic model of continuing preparation of students for innovative practice has not been implemented to date. Therefore, the purpose of the article is to develop a didactic model of preparing students for innovation by means of identifying its main components and to prove experimentally the effectiveness of its implementation in the process of continuing education of perspective primary school teachers.
Materials and Methods. The study is based on the systematic approach, the implementation of which, in conjunction with competence-based, action, qualimetrical, personality-oriented and innovative approaches, provides a higher quality level through the integration of different clusters, components and innovative technologies of continuing education. The solution of research problems was ensured by a set of complementary theoretical methods on the analysis of domestic and foreign educational theory, practice and experience in the field of innovation. Moreover, the authors relied on such general scientific methods as classification, modeling, comparison, and generalization. Experimental methods involved diagnostic tools, statistical processing and expert assessments.
Results. A didactic model of preparing students for innovation as a basic, fundamental core in the structure of continuing education of primary school teachers, integrating resources and scientific and educational potential of further and higher education has been developed. The main components and their detailed characteristics are presented: motivational, cognitive, reflexive and operational. The effectiveness of educational process emphasizing special training for innovative practice is experimentally proved.
Conclusions. The practical significance of the study is as follows: the presented didactic model allows to reach a higher quality level of initial teacher training which contributes to the preparation of innovative educators. The proposed statements and conclusions create prerequisites for further study of the phenomenon of the implementation of innovative practices within continuing teacher education with the main focus on methodological, content and organizational aspects. The presented practical experience of implementing the didactic model can be used by other educational settings for creating professional environment.

For citation:
Nagovitsyn R. S., Maksimov Y. G., Miroshnichenko A. A., Senator S. J. Implementation of the didactic model of preparing students for innovative practice within the framework of continuing teacher education. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 7–24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1705.01
References: 
  1. Avanesov V. S. Application of educational technologies and pedagogical measurements to modernization of education. Contemporary Higher Education: Innovative Aspects, 2015, no. 1, pp. 63–88. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23301980
  2. Zagvyazinsky V. I., Strokova T. A. Pedagogical innovation: problems, strategies and tactics. Monograph. Tyumen, Tyumen State University Publ., 2011, 176 p. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21097197
  3. Clarin M. V. Tool of innovative education: transformative learning. Pedagogy, 2017, no. 3, pp. 19–27. (In Russian) URL: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=28916192.
  4. Kuzmina N. V., Shmeleva E. A. Educational environment of a university in the development of the acme-innovative potential of future teachers. Acmeology, 2013, no. 1, pp. 16–21. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19005037.
  5. Maksimov Yu. G. Analysis of innovation in the field of physical culture. Bulletin of the Saratov Regional Institute of Education Development, 2015, no. 3, pp. 52–61. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24296995
  6. Miroshnichenko A. A., Kurteeva O. V. Qualimetry of educational project. Bulletin of Kalashnikov ISTU, 2014, no. 2, pp. 182–184. (In Russian) URL: https://library.ru/item.asp?id=21895447.
  7. Nagovitsyn R. S., Vladykina I. V., Training program to hit standards of all-Russian sports complex «ready for labour and defence» (GTO) based on mobile learning. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2015, no. 1, pp. 46–48. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22741684
  8. Nagovitsyn R. S. Conceptual framework of formation of personal physical culture of student based on mobile learning. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2014, no. 10, pp. 11–14. (In Russian) URL: https://library.ru/item.asp?id=22028840
  9. Nagovitsyn R. S., Rassolova E. A., Senator S. Yu., Torbina I. I. Web portal design to prepare students for GTO tests. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2016, no. 1, pp. 39–42. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25145002
  10. Perminova L. M. Didactics model of education: Methodology and structure. The Humanities and Education, 2015, no. 3, pp. 61–67. (In Russian) URL: https://library.ru/item.asp?id=24103719
  11. Podymova L. S. Psihologo-pedagogical innovatika: personal aspect. Monograph.  Moscow, Moscow Pedagogical State University Publ., 2012, 2007 p. (In Russian) URL: https://library.ru/item.asp?id=20464538
  12. Polyakov S. D., Petrieva L. I. Teachers images: models of analysis. New in psychological and pedagogical studies, 2014, no. 2, pp. 7–15. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21997005.
  13. Slastenin V. A., Zhog V. I., Borisova N. Yu., Pleshakov V. A., Podymova L. S. Мodels of system integration of innovative international educational practice into system of russian national education. Pedagogical Education and Science, 2010, no. 1, pp. 4–11. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?Id=17056075.
  14. Slastenin V. A., Podymova L. S. Readiness of the teacher for innovative activity. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 2007, no. 1, pp. 42–49. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?Id=11687141.
  15. Khutorskoy A. V. Competence approach and methodology of didactics. To the 90th anniversary of the birth of V. V. Krayevsky. Bulletin of the Institute of Human Education, 2016, no. 1, pp. 11–14. (In Russian) URL: https://library.ru/item.asp?id=28101971
  16. Cherepanov V. S., Yushkova V. V. The qualimetry of innovation projects in educational institutions. Bulletin of Kalashnikov ISTU, 2009, no. 2, pp. 160–161. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12330058.
  17. Shchedrovitsky G. P. From the archive G. P. Schedrovitsky. Monograph. Moscow, Way Publ., 2004, 17 p. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=20022221
  18. Achinstein B., Curry M. W., Ogawa R. T., Athanases S. Z. Organizing high schools for Latina/o youth success. Urban Education, 2016, vol. 51 (7), pp. 824–854. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085914550413
  19. Evans C. Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 2013, vol. 83 (1), pp. 70–120. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350.
  20. Hagger M., Chatzisarantis N. The trans-contextual model of autonomous motivation in education conceptual and empirical issues and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 2016, vol. 86 (2), pp. 360–407. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315585005.
  21. Ingvarson L., Quality G. R. Assurance in teacher education and outcomes: A study of 17 countries. Educational Researcher, 2017, vol. 46 (4), pp. 177–193. URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X17711900?journalCode=edra#articleCitationDownloadContainer
  22. Jonas M. Three misunderstandings of Plato's theory of moral education. Educational Theory, 2016, vol. 66 (3), pp. 301–322. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edth.12169.
  23. Nagovitsyn R. S., Volkov P. B., Miroshnichenko A. A. Planning of physical load of annual cycle of students’, practicing cyclic kinds of sports, training. Physical Education of Students, 2017, vol. 21 (3), pp. 126–133.  DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2017.0305.
  24. Peurach D. J. Innovating at the nexus of impact and improvement. Educational Researcher, 2016, vol. 45 (7), pp. 421–429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16670898 
  25. Quartz K. H., Weinstein R. S., Kaufman G., Levine H., Mehan H., Pollock M., Priselac J. Z., WorrellF. C. University-partnered new school designs: Fertile ground for research-practice partnerships. Educational Researcher, 2017, vol. 46 (3), pp. 143–146. URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0013189X17703947
  26. Savelsbergh E. R., Prins G. T., Rietbergen C., Fechner S., Vaessen B. E., Draijer J. M., Bakker A. Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and achievement: A meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 2016, vol. 19, pp. 158–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.003
  27. Tarlau R. From a language to a theory of resistance: Critical pedagogy, the limits of “framing,” and social change. Educational Theory, 2014, vol. 64 (4), pp. 369–392. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edth.12067
  28. Warmington P. Dystopian social theory and education. Educational Theory, 2015, vol. 65 (3), pp. 265–281. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edth.12112
  29. Zirkel S., Garcia J., Murphy M. Experience-sampling research methods and their potential for education research. Educational Researcher, 2015, vol. 44 (1), pp. 7–16. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14566879  
Date of the publication 31.10.2017