Relationships between Educational Participants in the Context of Problem Modeling

Maria Fominykh, Bella Uskova, Nataliya Vetlugina, Tatiana Luzjanina, Lidija Volkova


At present, the goal of education is not only to release a specialist who has received a high-level theoretical and practical training, but also to introduce him at the training stage to the development of new technologies, adapt them to the conditions of a particular production environment, make him a conductor of new technological solutions, therefore the educational process should develop under the conditions of a model-based approach. The purpose of this study is to present the developed structure of interaction between the subjects of the educational process in terms of the problem-model approach within preparation of elemetary education teachers. A methodical system of specialized training of students of pedagogical specialties has been developed and implemented in the context of problem modeling, which ensures that most students achieve a creative level of training in specialized academic disciplines and a high level of development of specialized and specialized competencies. The materials of the article can be useful: to the faculty and heads of universities, where future teachers are trained, to improve the quality of student training and more effective organization of the educational process; employers of future teachers; students of pedagogical areas of training and potential applicants.

Full Text:



Astashova N.A., Bondyreva S.K., Zhuk O.L. (2019). Preparation of future teachers for the implementation of the ideas of multicultural education in the interactive educational space. The Education and science journal, 21(2): 27-50.

Costaa, C., Ana Cardosob, A.P., Pedroso-Lima, M., Ferreira, M., Abrantese, J.L. (2015). Pedagogical Interaction and Learning Performance as Determinants of Academic Achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171: 874 – 881.

Gelman, S.A. (2012). Children’s Sensitivity to the Knowledge Expressed in Pedagogical and Non-Pedagogical Contexts. Developmental Psychology, 16(1): 23-27.

Koper, R. (2012). Modeling units of study from a pedagogical perspectivethe pedagogical meta-model behind EML. Educational Technology Expertise, 12 (2): 3-28.

Wu, X., Liu, M., Zheng, Q., Zhang, Y., Li, H. (2015). Modeling User Psychological Experience and Case Study in Online E-Learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(6): 53-61.

Gejdoš, M., Korčeková, A. (2015). A description of the interaction style of the teacher on the educational results of pupils. EDUCatt - Ente per il diritto allo studio universitario dell'Università Cattolica, 144: 188-124.

Waring, H.Z. (2016). Theorizing Pedagogical Interaction. G.B.: Routledge, pp. 158.

Brouwer, C.E., Day, D., Rasmussen, G. (2012). Evaluating Cognitive Competences in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 238.

Nind, M., Curtin, A., Hall, C. (2016). Research Methods for Pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 296.

Fominykh, M.V. (2016). The game simulation as a method of training for teachers of a higher school. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 11(12): 339-341.

De Guzman, N. J., Jose, N., Belecina, R. (2012). Block Model Approach in Problem Solving: Effects on Problem Solving Performance of the Grade V Pupils in Mathematics. Conference Paper: 35th MERGA Conference, At Nanyang Technological University, (2.35): 11-14.

Campbell, T., Seok, Oh. P., Maughn, M., Kiriazis, N., Zuwallack, R. (2015). A Review of Modeling Pedagogies: Pedagogical Functions, Discursive Acts, and Technology in Modeling Instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1): 159-176.

Cruz, M.E., Kwinta, A. (2013). "Buddy System": A Pedagogical Innovation to Promote Online Interaction. Profile Issues in Teachers` Professional Development, 15 (1): 207-221.

Fernández-Ferrer, M., Cano, E. (2015). The influence of the internet for pedagogical innovation: using twitter to promote online collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13: 22-29.

Gao, F., Luo, T., Zhang K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5): 783–801.

Friesen, N., Lowe, S. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education: connective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28: 183–194.

Lee, K., Tsai, P.S., Chait, C.S., Koht, J.H.L. (2014). Students’ percetions of self-directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30: 425–437.

Fominykh, M.V., Uskova, B.A., Mantulenko, V.V., Kuzmina, O.N., Shuravina, E.N. (2016). A Model for the Education of a Student of a Vocational Pedagogical Educational Institution Through the Gaming Simulation. IEJME-Mathematics Education, 11(8): 2814-2840.

Gluck, K. A., Laird, J. E. (2018). Interactive task learning: Agents, robots, and humans acquiring new tasks through natural interactions. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 354.

Hamman, D., Olivarez, A., Lesley, M., Button, K., Chan, Y.M., Griffith, R., Elliot, S. (2019). Pedagogical influence of interaction with cooperating teachers on the efficacy beliefs of student teachers. The Teacher Educator, 54: 15-29.

Madaio, M.A., Ogan, A., Cassell J. (2016). Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 450.

Boud, D., Lawson, R., Thompson, D. (2013). Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgment over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8): 941–956.

Strogilo, V., Stefanidis, A. (2015). Contextual antecedents of co-teaching efficacy: Their influence on students with disabilities' learning progress, social participation and behaviour improvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47: 218-229.

Rodríguez-Hoyos, C., Calvo Salvador, A. (2011). The e-Tutor Figure: Findings and conclusions of a case-study research project. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 8: 801-810.

D’Mello, S.K., Graesser, A.C. (2012). AutoTutor and affective AutoTutor: learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2(23): 1–38.

Sinclair, C. (2016). With a personal appearance from the online teacher. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1 (8).

Kim, L.E., Jörg, V., Klassen, R.M. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teacher Personality on Teacher Effectiveness and Burnout. Educational Psychology Review, 31 (1): 163–195.

Sadovnikova N.O., Mirzaahmedov A.M. (2019). Relevant concepts of a teacher’s state when experiencing professional identity crisis. The Education and science journal, 21(2):113-131.

Arnott, E., Hastings, P., Allbritton, D. (2008). Research Methods Tutor: Evaluation of a dialogue-based tutoring system in the classroom. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3): 694-698.

Zhonglu, L., Zeqi, C. (2018). How does family background affect children’s educational achievement? Evidence from Contemporary China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 5 (13): 218-229.

Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the literature. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning, pp. 199.

Waks, L.J. (2007). The Concept of Fundamental Educational Change. Educational Theory, 57: 277-295.

Esenina, E.Y., Kurteeva, L.N., Osadcheva, S.A., Satdykov, A.I., Kress, H. (2018). Labour Education and Vocational Training in Germany: A Brief Historical Review. The Education and science journal, 20 (9): 56-74.

Davydova, N.N., Dorozhkin, E.M., Fedorov, V.A. (2018). Educational research networks principles of organization. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7 (2.13): 24-29.

Kokovikhin, A.Y., Mokronosov, A.G., Ogorodnikova, E.S. (2019). Institutional modelling of the management system for regional participants of dual education. The Education and science journal, 21(2): 74-95.

Zeer, E.F., Krezhevskikh, O.V. (2018). Modelling of socio-humanitarian education platform for trans-professionalism development of professionals involved in multi-disciplinary projects. The Education and science journal, 20(7): 90-108. (In Russ.)

Chapaev, N.K., Efanov, A.V., Bychkova, E.Yu., Dorozhkin, E.M., Akimova, O.B. (2018). Spiritual and moral foundations of craft profession training. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 13(New Science Methodology 1b): em78.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

 ISSN: 1305-3515