Partnership pedagogics and project learning as the ways to develop modern education actors


https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2021-2-12

Full Text:




Abstract

The modern educational system has no chance to avoid responding the challenges of the emerging digital civilization and multimedia culture. To authors’ opinion, such response is the actualization of subject-subjective nature of educational service production/consumption. Taking into account the contradiction between traditionally formed, essentially conservative paradigm of educational process and explosive improvement of life conditions in the modern society, the authors suggest to activate the partnership pedagogics as the meaningful response of university education to to the modern era challenges. The article discusses the experience of partnership pedagogics in the project leaning format in conditions of educational process at Plekhanov Russian University of Economics. The paper objective is to present the analysis results of cognitive abilities of a student as a partner in the project learning context. The research methodology and techniques predetermine consideraing the view of a student role in the project  learning process as an equal, motivated actor participating in the process of education and self-education, actively interacting with a scientific supervisor-tutor. Viewing the student as the partner in the project learning context supposes understanding the relevance of the student subjective position. Adjustment of educational paradigm  actually forming “soft skills” primarily enables shift of education processes from traditional subject-object “stuffing students up” with  information to subject-subjective student “self-education  management”; students have their research, organizational and creative tasks. The dilemma of many modern pedagogical practices is associated with the necessity to master “hard skills” (basic, programme skills), and “soft skills” (mobile skills, connected to  creativity, dialogue and openness to multiple ways of task-solutions). The essential solution of this contradiction and the possibility of its  “sublation” on the higher level is related to the partnership pedagogy, where the student is regarded as the equal, equipotent agent, active  and initiative participant in the educational process interaction. The  future research prospects are connected to the psychological analysis of humanistic oriented practices in the educational process.

About the Authors

V. A. Koshel
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics
Russian Federation

Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Chair of Advertising, Public Relations and Design

36, Stremyannyi Lane, Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation



A. P. Segal
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Senior Researcher, Chair of Philosophy of Language and Communication, Faculty of Philosophy, 

«Shuvalov» Corp., 1, Lenin Hills, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation



T. L. Shklyar
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics
Russian Federation

Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Chair of Advertising, Public Relations and Design

36, Stremyannyi Lane, Moscow, 117997, Russian Federation



L. P. Kazakova
Institute of Economics and Culture
Russian Federation

Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of General and Organizational Psychology

31, Ibragimov Str., Moscow, 105318, Russian Federation



References

1. Delez Zh., Gvattari F. Rhizome. The philosophy of postmodern epoch. Minsk, 1996, pp. 9-31. (In Russ.)

2. Rylova A.G. Soft skills – skills of XXI century: what is most appreciated by employers-drivers in Russia and Permski region? SRU HSE in Perm’. URL: https://perm.hse.ru/news/243254110.html (accessed 22.01.2021). (In Russ.)

3. Federal law on December, 30 2020 no. 489-FZ “On youth policy in Russian Federation”. Garant. URL: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/400056192/ (accessed 16.01.2021). (In Russ.)

4. Segal A. P. Нumboldt school reform as a standard of social strategy (experience of retrospective project analysis). Professional education in the modern world, 2020, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3409–3417. (In Russ.)

5. Ivanov A. V., Laktjushina E. A., Fedorova A. V. Innovative educational technologies as a way to upgrade the learning motivation of students. Modern aspects of advertising and PR activity. Practice. Education. Moscow, 2017, pp. 54–63. (In Russ.).

6. Buhanov G. V. Project thinking. Creativity. Bulletin of East Siberian Open Academy, 2020, no. 38, art. 2, pp. 1–11. (In Russ.).

7. Kravchins’ka T. S. Pedagogics of partnership – main ideas, principles and essence. Preparation of management and teaching personnel for the implementation of the concept of a new Ukrainian school: collection of art. of All-Ukrain. sci.-pract. Internet conf. Kharkiv, 2017, pp. 85–88. URL: https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/707221/ (accessed 22.01.2021). (In Ukr.)

8. Barnett R. Thinking on university (based on materials of inaugural professor’s lecture at the Institute of Education of London University. October, 25, 1997). Sixtieth parallel, 2008, no. 2, pp. 34–41. (In Russ.)

9. Drucker P. F. Management challenges for the 21st century. New York, Harper Collins Publ., 1999, 207 p.

10. Drucker P. F. The practice of management. New York, Harper & Row, 1954, 404 p.

11. Koshel V. A., Pavlidis P. On contradictions of the educational system in «cognitive capitalism» era. Professional education in the modern world, 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2160–2166. (In Russ.).

12. Schutte N., Malouff J., Bobik C., Coston T., Greeson C., Jedlicka C. et al. Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, vol. 141, no. 4, pp. 523–536.

13. Heckman J., Kautz T. Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics, 2012, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 451–464.

14. Martins E., Terblanche F. Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2003, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 64–74.

15. Masika R., Jones, J. Building student belonging and engagement: insights into higher education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher Education, 2015, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 138–150.

16. Prencipe A., Tell F. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 2001, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1373–1394.

17. Robles M. Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 2012, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 453–465.

18. Schindler M., Eppler M. Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 2003, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 219–228.

19. Kazakova L. P. The problem of identifying the criteria of creative product in advertisement activity. Bulletin of Moscow Ivan Fedorov State University of Print, 2011, no. 12, pp. 104–114. (In Russ.)

20. Chiksentmihaii M. Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Moscow, CarierPress, 2013, 528 p. (In Russ.)

21. Afonsky S. A., Fedorova A. V., Gorokhova A. E., Ivanov A. V., Ladogina A. Y., Samoylenko I. S., Vvedenskaya M. V. Cultural codes of the youth subculture. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 2020, vol. 12, no. S4, pp. 1266–1275. DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP4/20201603.

22. Kutyanskaya K. I. The author’s technique of psychodiagnostics and personal growth of a student while studying the disciplines “copywriting” and “creative technologies in advertising and PR”. Creativity in communications: theory and practice, 2014, pp. 29–36. (In Russ.)

23. Koshel’ V. A., Kutyrkina L. V. Communicative aspect of changing paradigm of modern education. Recueil darticles. Paris, 2019, pp. 200–210.

24. Shilina M. G. Internet-communication and theoretical aspects of investigating mass-media. Mediascope, 2011, no. 4. URL: http://www.mediascope.ru/node/972 (accessed 25.01.2021).

25. Penner L. A., Dovidio J. F., Piliavin J. A., Schroeder D. A. Prosocial behavior: multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 2005, vol. 56, pp. 365–392.

26. Tsang J.-A. Gratitude and prosocial behavior: an experimental test of gratitude. Cognition and Emotion, 2006, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 138–148.

27. Martí-Vilar M., Corell-García L., Merino-Soto C. A systematic review of prosocial behavior measures. Revista de Psicología, 2019, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 349–377.

28. Kacmar K. M., Carlson D. S., Harris K. J. Interactive effect of leader’s influence tactics and ethical leadership on work effort and helping behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2013, vol. 153, no. 5, pp. 577–597.

29. Nakonechna M. M. Helping the other: psychological aspects. Kiev, Slovo, 2012, 184 p. (In Ukr.).

30. Nakonechna M. M. Prosocial interaction as a dialogue. The problems of modern psychology. Kam’yanets’-Podіl’s’kii, 2016, iss. 31, pp. 248–257. (In Ukr.)


Supplementary files

For citation: Koshel V.A., Segal A.P., Shklyar T.L., Kazakova L.P. Partnership pedagogics and project learning as the ways to develop modern education actors. Professional education in the modern world. 2021;11(2):118-127. https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2021-2-12

Views: 418

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


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


ISSN 2224-1841 (Print)