Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Training in Organization of Open Education

  • Lilyana M. Toomsalu Mittetulundusühing Institute for Monitoring Education Quality (Estonia). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-7334
  • Tatyana V. Yarovova Department of State, Municipal Management and Social Processes. Odintsovo Branch of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia (Russian Federation). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4902-3775
  • Marina V. Vinogradova Research Institute of Advanced Directions and Technologies. Russian State Social University (Russian Federation). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5051-9404
  • Natalya I. Nikitina Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Russian Federation). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9659-3581
Keywords: Open education, professional competencies, student, teacher, higher education, information and communications technology.

Abstract

The modern concept of open education modifies the traditional learning format through advanced information and communications technology. This fact imposes special requirements for all participants in the learning process and makes it necessary to reconsider the tasks and functions of students and teachers. This is relevant, therefore, to find a way of making a gradual transition to the model of open education. Based on an experiment with introductory training, the authors perform an empirical assessment of teachers’ preparedness to organize open education and use open educational resources (OER). The effectiveness of the introductory training of teachers was checked by means of interviewing and testing respondents. The research results showed that there were significant changes in the training criteria: according to the motivational and value-based criterion, virtually all teachers displayed a positive shift in their attitude to organization of open education; in terms of the cognitive criterion, the teachers acquired thorough knowledge of open education tools; according to the operational criterion, the teachers acquired the necessary skills in developing and introducing OER. In the process of observation, we recorded a rise in the number of teachers with a sufficient (by 60.5% compared with the verification stage) and high (by 16.6%) level of preparedness. The introductory training, therefore, is a principal component in the stable system of open education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Lilyana M. Toomsalu, Mittetulundusühing Institute for Monitoring Education Quality (Estonia).

Assistant professor of the Center of Social Development. Mittetulundusühing Institute for Monitoring Education Quality (Estonia).

Tatyana V. Yarovova, Department of State, Municipal Management and Social Processes. Odintsovo Branch of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia (Russian Federation).

Cand.Sci. (Pedagogical), Assistant professor, Head of the Department of State, Municipal Management and Social Processes. Odintsovo Branch of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia (Russian Federation).

Marina V. Vinogradova, Research Institute of Advanced Directions and Technologies. Russian State Social University (Russian Federation).

Dr.Sci. (Economic), Professor, Director of Research Institute of Advanced Directions and Technologies. Russian State Social University (Russian Federation).

Natalya I. Nikitina, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Russian Federation).

Dr.Sci. (Pedagogical), Professor. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Russian Federation).

References

Alcalde, P., & Nagel, J. (2016). Does active learning improve student performance? A randomized experiment in a Chilean university. Journal of Eurasian Social Dialogue, 1(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2687217

Aleksejeva, L. (2016). Country’s competitiveness and sustainability: Higher education impact. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 5(3), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2015.5.3(4)

Alkhatib, O. J. (2018). An interactive and blended learning model for engineering education. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), 19–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0097-x

Andersson, P., & Köpsén, S. (2015). Continuing professional development of vocational teachers: Participation in a Swedish national initiative. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-015-0019-3

Andreev, A. A. (1998). Let’s define in terms. Higher Education in Russia, 4, 44–48.

Andreev, A. A., & Soldatkin V. I. (2002). Applied philosophy of open education: A pedagogical aspect. Moscow: Alfa.

Balashova, K. V., & Alekseev, А. L. (2018). Instrumentary expert evaluation of innovation projects and technologies. Radio Industry (Russia), 2, 99–104. https://doi.org/10.21778/2413-9599-2018-2-99-104

Batkovskiy, A. M., Konovalova, A. V, Semenova, E. G., Trofimets, V. J., & Fomina, A. V. (2015). Study of economic systems using the simulation-based statistical modeling method. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s4p369

Carlisle, D. L., & Weaver, G. C. (2018). STEM education centers: Catalyzing the improvement of undergraduate STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0143-2

Chuvikov, D. A. (2017). Application of expert modeling in new knowledge obtained by man. Radio Industry (Russia), 2, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.21778/2413-9599-2017-2-72-80

Čirjevskis, A. (2015). Sustainability in higher education: Discourse on dynamic capabilities of privately run higher educational institutions (HEI) in Latvia. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 5(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2014.5.1(9)

Cooley, S. J., Burns, V. E., & Cumming, J. (2015). The role of outdoor adventure education in facilitating groupwork in higher education. Higher Education, 69(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9791-4

Dubauskas, G., & Balius, R. (2015). Management of public private partnership in education: Aspects of public sector training sustainability issues. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 4(4), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2015.4.4(3)

Goncharova, E. V., & Shevchenko, T. S. (2012). Supporting an individual educational trajectory of student learning. Bulletin of Nizhnevartovsk State University, 2, 12–18.

Goodnough, K. (2010). Teacher learning and collaborative action research: Generating a “knowledge-of-practice” in the context of science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9215-y

Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1993). Differentiating between distance/open education systems-parameters for comparison. International Review of Education, 39(4), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01102409

Holmberg, B. (1989). Distance education and the mainstream: Convergence in education. Higher Education Policy 2(2): 63–64. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.1989.32

Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: Innovative digital school model. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0094-8

Kalimullin, A. M., & Utemov, V. V. (2017). Open type tasks as a tool for developing creativity in secondary school students. Interchange, 48(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-016-9295-5

Kolesnikova, I. A. (2009). Open education: Prospects, challenges, risks. Higher Education in Russia, 7, 12–23.

Kong, R., Gao, X., Zhong, W., & Zhou, X. (2015). MBA students’ quality improvement: The correlation analysis of students’ personal traits and attitudes towards teaching methods at a Chinese university. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(4), 608–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03397090

Kurylev, A. (2008). Continuing open vocational education for an innovative economy. Higher Education in Russia, 6, 16–21.

Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: A review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9436-x

Litau, E. Y. (2018). Cognitive science as a pivot of teaching financial disciplines. In Proceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2018: Innovation Management and Education Excellence through Vision 2020 (pp. 72–80).

Macheridis, N. (2017). Governance of higher education - implementation of project governance. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1236285

Mansour, N., EL-Deghaidy, H., Alshamrani, S., & Aldahmash, A. (2014). Rethinking the theory and practice of continuing professional development: Science teachers’ perspectives. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 949–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9409-y

Manuylov, V., Galkin, V., & Fedotov, I. (2004). Open education: Prospects, rationality, challenges. Higher Education in Russia, 1, 93–104.

Moiseev, V. (2002). Open education: Ideology of network formation. Higher Education in Russia, 6, 78–83.

Muskin, J. A. (2015). From good ideas to good practice: Putting teachers at the center of education improvement, where they belong. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 27(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9216-7

Nash, C. (2014). Founders’ continuing roles in schools supporting self-directed learning. Interchange, 45(1–2), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-014-9219-1

Ozdemir, O., & Hendricks, C. (2017). Instructor and student experiences with open textbooks, from the California open online library for education (Cool4Ed). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9138-0

Pevzner M. N., Buketov, V. O., & Zaychenko, O. M. (2000). Pedagogy of openness and a dialogue of cultures. Moscow, Research Center for the Issues of Specialists Training Quality.

Potapova, M. V., & Tsilitskiy, V. S. (2016). Individual trajectory of tutorial support of the educational process as a social problem. Uchenye zapiski universiteta imeni P.F. Lesgafta, 11(141), 158–162.

Rakhkoshkin, A. A. (2005). Openness of educational process (the case of Western European pedagogy). Velikiy Novgorod: Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University.

Sam, V. (2018). Overeducation among graduates in developing countries: What impact on economic growth? Journal of Eurasian Economic Dialogue, 3(6), 1–19.

Sloan, T. F. (2015). Data and learning that affords program improvement: A response to the U.S. accountability movement in teacher education. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-015-9179-y

Tan, S. C., Ho, C. M., & Pang, V. (2016). Education inequality: Become better or worse? Journal of Eurasian Social Dialogue, 1(1), 1–5.

Uvarova, N. M., & Maksimchenko, T. V. (2012). Individual educational trajectory as a necessary condition for the personal and professional development of college students. Scientific Research in Education, 2, 19–24.

Volchik, V., & Maslyukova, E. (2017). Performance and sustainability of higher education: Key indicators versus academic values. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 6(3), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2017.6.3(14)

Wang, S., & Murota, M. (2016). Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education. Instructional Science, 44(6), 501–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9385-x
Published
2019-11-21
How to Cite
Toomsalu, L., Yarovova, T., Vinogradova, M., & Nikitina, N. (2019). Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Training in Organization of Open Education. Amazonia Investiga, 8(24), 306-314. Retrieved from https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/988
Section
Articles