Intensification of teacher training within a professional retraining programme


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

There is a contradiction between the need to purposefully develop the teachers’ readiness for innovation in the course of their academic activity and insufficient attention to this problem when creating and implementing professional retraining programs for the teaching staff. There are a number of projects that bring together scientists in the field of organizing the training and retraining of teachers of engineering universities. One of them is the Erasmus+ project “Pedagogical training of engineering teachers (ENTER)”. The purpose of this study is to test the module “Enhancement of Learning Interactivity” as a part of the program “Innovative Pedagogy for Teachers of Engineering Universities” and to intensify student learning. When designing the module “Enhancement of Learning Interactivity”, we took into account the recommendations of the International Society for Engineering Pedagogy (IGIP), the experience of the Estonian Center for Engineering Pedagogy, which focuses on retraining teachers, as well as modern innovative teaching methods, such as: interactive lectures, group work, discussions, design portfolio, case study, etc. In the course of the experiment the researchers used teaching modeling methodology, pedagogical experiment, and participant observation. The results of the experiment have shown that the level of the final works of the respondents from the experimental group is higher compared to those from the control group: more teachers coped with the final tasks of the module and got better understanding of the teaching materials. The authors have come to the conclusion that the most effective organizational teaching forms are interactive lectures, group work, discussion; the recommended methods are portfolio design, case-study, peer-instruction, presentations, feedback, analysis of one’s own course, metacognitive strategies, pauses for reflection; the recommended visualization tools are mind-maps, concept maps of literature reviews, and thesaurus maps.

About the authors

Tiia Ruutmann

Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn

Email: tiia.ruutmann@taltech.ee
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8944-0149

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD in Pedagogy), assistant professor at the Institute of Mechanics and Industrial Engineering; Head of the Estonian Center for Engineering Pedagogy; Director of the Education Development Center of the Faculty of Engineering

Estonia

Guzel Rafaelevna Khusainova

Kazan National Research Technological University, Kazan

Author for correspondence.
Email: english4@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2509-5961

PhD (Pedagogy), Associate Professor, assistant professor of Chair “Foreign Languages in Professional Communication”

Russian Federation

Mansur Floridovitch Galikhanov

Kazan National Research Technological University, Kazan

Email: mgalikhanov@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5647-1854

Doctor of Sciences (Engineering), professor of Chair “Technology of Processing of Polymers and Composite Materials”, Director of the Institute of Additional Professional Education

Russian Federation

References

  1. Khusainova G.R., Karstina S.G., Galikhanov M.F. Assessing educators’ readiness for innovative professional and pedagogical activities. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2022, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 42–60. doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2022-31-7-42-60.
  2. Osipov P.N. Mentorship as a social and pedagoical phenomenon. Upravlenie ustoychivym razvitiem, 2023, no. 1, pp. 102–108. doi: 10.55421/2499992X_2023_1_102.
  3. Khusainova G.R., Galikhanov M.F. Work-in-Progress: Development of the Discipline “Innovations in Engineering Pedagogy” as Part of an Advanced Professional Training for Educators of Engineering Schools in Higher Education Institutions. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2021, vol. 1329, pp. 3–10. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-68201-9_1.
  4. Chuchalin A.I. University training of stem-it professionals to innovation activity in 3D-teams. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2022, vol. 31, no. 8-9, pp. 79–96. doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2022-31-8-9-79-96.
  5. Lu J., Bridges S., Hmelo-Silver C.E. Problem-based learning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2014, pp. 298–318. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.019.
  6. Ruutmann T. Engineering Pedagogy as the Basis for Effective Teaching Competencies of Engineering Faculty. Higher Education in Russia, 2019, no. 28, pp. 123–131. doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-12-123-131.
  7. Ruutmann T. Development of Teachers’ Judgement Skills as a Component of Pre- and In-Service Training. Learning in the Age of Digital and Green Transition, 2020, pp. 639–648. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_67.
  8. Buzan T. The Mind Map Book. London, BBC Books Publ., 2000. 320 p.
  9. Gassman S.L., Maher M.A., Timmerman B., Pierce C.E. Pedagogical Techniques to Promote Development of Graduate Engineering Students as Disciplinary Writers. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2013, pp. 23.959.1–23.959.11. doi: 10.18260/1-2--22344.
  10. Kozlova I.V. The thesaurus approach use to knowledge mapping. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatelskiy zhurnal, 2016, no. 12-5, pp. 147–149. doi: 10.18454/IRJ.2016.54.067.
  11. Mosteller F. The “Muddiest Point in the Lecture” as a Feedback Device on Teaching and Learning. Journal of the Harvard Danforth Center on Teaching and Learning, 1989, no. 3, pp. 10–21.
  12. Crouch C.H., Mazur E. Peer instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results. American Journal of Physics, 2001, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 970–977. doi: 10.1119/1.1374249.
  13. Crawley E.F., Malmqvist J., Östlund S., Brodeur D.R., Edström K. Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. 2nd ed. New York, Springer Publ., 2014. 311 p.
  14. Enelund M., Wedel M.K., Lundqvist U., Malmqvist J. Integration of education for sustainable development in the mechanical engineering curriculum. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2013, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 51–62. doi: 10.7158/D12-018.2013.19.1.
  15. Ruutmann T. Development of Critical Thinking and Reflection. The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education, 2019, pp. 895–906. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-11935-5_85.
  16. Brent R., Felder R.M. Want Your Students to Think Creatively and Critically? How About Teaching Them? Chemical Engineering Education, 2014, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 113–114.
  17. Zolotareva S.A. The “flipped classroom’ method”: history and experience. Mir nauki, kultury, obrazovaniya, 2022, no. 2, pp. 29–32. doi: 10.24412/1991-5497-2022-293-29-32.
  18. Feder L., Cramer C. Research on portfolios in teacher education: a systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 2023. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2023.2212870.
  19. Valeeva R.A., Menter I. Russian Teacher Education in global context. Teacher Education in Russia. Past, Present, and Future. London, Routledge Publ., 2021, pp. 193–210. doi: 10.4324/9780429325281.
  20. Boonpracha J. SCAMPER for creativity of students’ creative idea creation in product design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2023, vol. 48, article number 101282. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101282.
  21. Shageeva F.T., Mishchenko E.S., Chernyshov N.G., Nurgalieva K.E., Turekhanova K.M., Omirzhanov E.T. International enter project: a new pedagogical training approach for engineering educators. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2020, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 65–74. doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-6-65-74.
  22. Pilous R., Leuders T., Ruede C. Novice and expert teachers’ use of content-related knowledge during pedagogical reasoning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2023, vol. 129, article number 104149. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104149.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c)



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies