Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 57–83
© Golub G. B., Fishman I. S., Arbuzova S. A., Prudnikova V. A., 2021
UDC: 
377.5+378

Technology of modeling current and prospective roles and responsibilities of teaching staff for general education settings

Golub G. B. 1 (Samara, Russian Federation), Fishman I. S. 1 (Samara, Russian Federation), Arbuzova S. A. 1 (Samara, Russian Federation), Prudnikova V. A. 1 (Samara, Russian Federation)
1 Samara branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 422
Abstract: 

Introduction. This study analyses how changing requirements for results and processes of general education determine new or updated roles and responsibilities of teachers in the context of building a qualification framework in the field of education. The purpose of the research is to develop and test a technology for modeling roles and responsibilities and corresponding professional qualifications of general education teachers determined by changing requirements of the labor market and employers.
Materials and Methods. The study follows the process approach and methodology of structural and functional analysis of professional practice. The authors applied the following research methods: modeling, questionnaires, approbation, comparative analysis, generalization, classification, interpretation as well as methods of graphical representation of information in data processing and interpretation. In order to collect empirical data, the authors developed a questionnaire through modeling roles and responsibilities of teaching staff based on legislative materials as well as theoretical and practical evidence reflecting the requirements for processes and results of general education in the Russian Federation.
Results. The article presents a technology for modeling prospective roles and responsibilities and corresponding professional qualifications of general education teachers developed and tested by the authors. The system of current roles and responsibilities of subject teachers, class teachers and academic counselors has been established. The authors developed a set of prospective roles and responsibilities for education practitioners, the institutionalization of which is required for an appropriate response of a general education setting to changing requirements for processes and results of its work.
The study reveals how employers evaluate the importance of current roles and responsibilities of education practitioners and the demand for prospective ones. The authors summarize the ideas of employers about pursuing a career in the field of education. The study reveals an apparent discrepancy between the employers’ recognition of diversification of professional activities within educational settings and the stable professional and social stereotype of a ‘universal teacher’. The hypothesis about the hybridization of teachers’ roles and responsibilities as a basic way of developing the qualification framework in the field of education has been tested and confirmed.
Conclusions. The efficiency of the developed technology for modeling prospective roles and responsibilities and corresponding professional qualifications of general education teachers in accordance with the changing requirements of the labor market has been proved.

Keywords: 

Prospective roles and responsibilities of education practitioners; Significance of roles and responsibilities of education practitioners; Demand for roles and responsibilities of education practitioners; Professional qualifications; Hybridization of professional responsibilities.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:47136059

For citation:
Golub G. B., Fishman I. S., Arbuzova S. A., Prudnikova V. A. Technology of modeling current and prospective roles and responsibilities of teaching staff for general education settings. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 57–83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2105.04
References: 
  1. Rathelot R., van Rens T. Rethinking the skills gap. IZA World of Labor, 2017, 391 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.391
  2. Maltseva V. The concept of skills mismatch and the problem of measuring cognitive skills mismatch in cross-national studies. Educational Studies Moscow, 2019, no. 3, pp. 43–76. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2019-3-43-76  URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=39555184
  3. Vincent-Lancrin S., Urgel J., Kar S., Jacotin G. Measuring innovation in education 2019: What has changed in the classroom?Educational Research and Innovation, 2019, 336 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311671-en
  4. Klyachko T. L., Sinelnikov-Murylev S. G. Strategy for Russia: Education: monograph. М., 2018. 118 p. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32551604
  5. Bagirova A. P., Klyuev A. K., Notman O. V., Shubat O. M., Shcherbina E. Yu. Teaching work in modern Russia: transformation of content and evaluation: monograph. Yekaterinburg: Ural University, 2016. 207 p. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27503559
  6. Postalyuk N., Prudnikova V., Bobienko O. The technology of teachers skills gaps analysis as a tool of their professional development. Bulletin of TISBI, 2019, no. 3. pp. 44–55. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=45625618
  7. Evers J., Kneyber R. (Eds) Flip the system: Changing education from the ground up. Routledge, 2015, 320 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678573
  8. Colvin R. L., Edwards V. (Eds) Teaching for global competence in a rapidly changing world. OECD Publishing, 2018, 40 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264289024-en 
  9. Niemi H. Teacher professional development in Finland: Towards a more holistic approach. Psychology, Society and Education, 2015, vol.7 (3), pp. 279–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.519 

10. Korhonen T., Lavonen J., Kukkonen M., Sormunen K., Juuti K. The innovative school as an environment for the design of educational innovations. In: Niemi H., Multisilta J., Lipponen L., Vivitsou M. (eds) Finnish Innovations and Technologies in Schools, 2014, pp. 99–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-749-0_9 

11. Ritter G. W., Barnett J. H. Learning on the job: Teacher evaluation can foster real growth. Peabody Journal of Education, 2016, vol. 92 (7), pp. 48–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716641649 

12. Huber S. G., Skedsmo G. Teacher evaluation – accountability and improving teaching practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 2016, vol. 28 (2), pp. 105–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9241-1

13. Lam B. H. Teacher professional development in Hong Kong compared to Anglosphere: The role of Confucian philosophy. Psychology, Society and Education, 2015, vol. 7 (3), pp. 295–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.521 

14. Hamburg I., Lütgen G. digital divide, digital inclusion and inclusive education. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2019, vol. 6 (4), pp. 193–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.64.6457

15. Burns Е., Silvennoinen Е., Kopnov V. A., Shchipanova D. E., Papić-Blagojević N., Tomašević S. Supporting the development of digitally competent VET teachers in Serbia and Russia. The Education and Science Journal, 2020, vol. 22 (9), pp. 174–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2020-9-174-203 https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44192290

16. Klyachko T. L. The situation and trends in education in the World and in Russia. Educational Policy, 2020, no. 1, pp. 26–42. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.22394/2078-838X-2020-1-26-40  URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=43419288

17. Margolis A. A. Problems and prospects of the development of pedagogical education in the Russian Federation. Psychological Science & Education, 2014, vol. 19 (3), pp. 41–57. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22413085

18. Bautista A., Wong J., Gopinathan S. Teacher professional development in Singapore: Depicting the landscape. Psychology, Society and Education, 2015, vol. 7 (3), pp. 311–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.523  

19. Katz D. S. Growth models and teacher evaluation: What teachers need to know and do. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 2016, vol. 52 (1), pp. 11–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2016.1123039

20. Bocharova N. A., Pisareva S. A., Puchkov M. Yu., Snegurova V. I., Tryapitsyna A. P. A concept of teacher's competences level evaluation. Man and Education, 2017, no. 3, pp. 164–171. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30782409 

21. Margolis A. A. Teacher performance evaluation: A review of best foreign practices. Psychological Science and Education, 2019, vol. 24 (1), pp. 5–30. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2019240101 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37522528

22. Yakovleva E. N., Krasilova I. Y. From the experience of teacher certification in foreign countries. The Education and Science Journal, 2015, no. 9, pp. 147–160. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2015-9-147-160 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24416032

23. Oleynikova O. N., Muravyeva A. A., Aksenova N. M. National qualifications frameworks: Conceptual and methodological principles in the context of unresolved issues. The Education and Science Journal, 2018, vol. 20 (6), pp. 70–89. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-6-70-89  URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35191282

24. Golub G. B., Prudnikova V. A., Fishman I. S., Fishman L. I. Updating the qualification requirements for teaching staff: modeling based on policy and expert documents. Professional Education in Russia and Abroad, 2021, no. 2, pp. 6–13. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46482907

25. Surtayeva N. N. Educating - to teach or teaching - to educate (Changes in the nature of social interaction). Social Pedagogy, 2017, no. 3, pp. 31–38. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32362428

26. Novikov A. M. On the subject of pedagogy. Pedagogika, 2010, no. 6, pp. 8–15. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=15266772  

Date of the publication 31.10.2021