employee from 01.01.2019 to 01.01.2026
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
UDC 377.8
CSCSTI 14.33
The purpose of the study is the theoretical justification and experimental testing of a system of pedagogical conditions that transform industrial practice into a resource for the development of design competence in future primary school teachers. Research methods and organization. The study (2021–2024) was based on systems and competency-based approaches. The experiment involved students of secondary vocational education (44.02.02). The set of methods included theoretical analysis, modeling, pedagogical experiment, diagnostics (testing, product analysis, expert evaluation), and statistical processing (Student's t-test). Research results and conclusions. An integrative model for supervising students' industrial practice has been developed (diagnostic-prognostic, content-technological, reflexive-analytical, corrective-developing modules). The principle of contextual implementation has been substantiated. Industrial practice is for the first time considered as a system-forming resource for developing design competence through the unity of mentorship, professional trials, and reflection. The model is scalable to other pedagogical specialties in secondary vocational education.
secondary vocational education, design competence, industrial practice, contextual implementation, integrative support model, clinical approach
1. Asmolov A. G. (2015), “Psychology of modernity: the challenges of uncertainty, complexity and diversity”, Psychological studies, Vol. 8, No. 40, pp. 1–14.
2. Biryukova O. I., Ivanova T. A. (2021), “Theoretical and practical basis of formation of design competence of teachers in the framework of additional professional education”, Modern problems of science and education, No. 2, p. 68, DOIhttps://doi.org/10.17513/spno.30676.
3. Margolis A. A. (2014), “The requirements for the modernization of basic professional education program (BPEP) of teachers training in accordance with the professional standard of the teacher: proposals for the implementation of the activity approach in teachers training”, Psychological science and education, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 105–126.
4. Margolis A. A. (2015), “Teacher training models in applied bachelor and pedagogical master programs”, Psychological science and education, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 45–64, DOIhttps://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2015200505.
5. Margolis A. A., Safronova M. A., Panfilova A. S., Shishlyannikova L. M. (2018), “Outcomes of independent evaluation of general professional competencies in future teachers”, Psychological science and education, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 64–81, DOIhttps://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2018230106.
6. Zimnyaya I. A. (2003), “Key competencies – a new paradigm of educational outcomes”, Higher education today, No. 5, pp. 34–42.
7. Zeer E. F., Krezhevskikh O. V. (2022), “Conceptual and theoretical foundations of personalised learning”, Education and science journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 11–39, DOIhttps://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2022-4-11-39.
8. Baydenko V. I. (2004), “Competencies in professional education (towards the development of a competence-based approach)”, Higher education in Russia, No 11, pp. 3–13.
9. Kuz'mina N. V. (1990), “The professionalism of the teacher's personality and the master of industrial training”, Moscow, Vy`ssh.shk., 117 p., ISBN 5-06-002117-3.
10. Lomakina T. Yu., Sergeeva M. G. (2014), “Modern vocational education technologies in the context of transition to competence-based education”, The Journal of Secondary Vocational Education, No. 8, pp. 6–14.
11. Shchedrovitskii G. P. (1993), “The system of pedagogical research (methodological analysis)”, Pedagogy and Logic, Moscow, Kastal', pp. 16–200, URL: https://www.mathedu.ru/text/pedagogika_i_logika_1993/p2/.
12. Bespal'ko V. P. (1989), “Components of pedagogical technology”, Moscow, 192 p., ISBN 5-7155-0099-0.
13. Makarenko YU. V. (2020), “Designing in education: a historical aspect”, Problems of modern teacher education, No. 68-1, pp. 182–187.
14. Zair-Bek E. S. (2017), “Modern methodology of design research innovations in education”, Izvestia: Herzen university journal of humanities & sciences, No. 185, pp. 15–23.
15. Russell J. D. (1974), “Modular Instruction: A Guide to Design, Selection, Utilization and Evolution of Modular Materials”, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Burgess Publishing Company, 142 p., ISBN 9780598173898.
16. Yutsyavichene P. A. (1990), “Principles of modular learning”, Soviet pedagogy, No. 1, pp. 55–60.
17. Choshanov M. A. (2013), “E-Didactics: A new perspective on learning theory in the Digital Age”, Educational technology & society, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 673–686.
18. Verbitskii A. A. (2006), “Contextual learning in a competency-based approach”, Higher education in Russia, No. 11, pp. 39–46.
19. Orlov A. A. (1995), “Professional thinking of a teacher as a value”, Pedagogy, No. 6, pp. 63–68.
20. Orlov A. A. (2013), “The specificity of modern pedagogical knowledge”, Pedagogy, No. 8, pp. 3–14.
21. Sandabkina T. B. (2023), “Professional self-determination of college students through industry-focused teaching practice”, BSU bulletin. Education. Personality. Society, No 2, pp. 26–32, DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18101/2307-3330-2023-2-26-32.
22. Slastenin V. A., Podymova L. S. (1997), “Pedagogy: innovative activity”, Moscow, Magistr, 224 p., ISBN 5-89317-048-2.
