TOPICAL PROBLEMS OF PEDAGOGY: HOW THESE CHANGE IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol4.5045Keywords:
pedagogical science, object of research, problem, digital technologies, transformationsAbstract
Digital technologies have brought about crucial educational changes that gained inexperienced scope. The article attends theoretical sources and introduces analysis of the most crucial changes in the science of pedagogy that might help explorers focus on the topical problems of pedagogy. Researchers have written extensively about the paradigm change in education in the digital era and have long understood that meaningful activities define effective educator and student decisions. Alongside with these, the characteristics of the problems of pedagogical science have obtained new appearances and require new investigation: the changes introduced by digital technologies have gained rapid global-wide dimensions and challenge adequate analysis; students and even experienced researchers find it difficult to distinguish between significant problems and their appearances in mobile environments; competencies’ approach in education also delivers new unknowns while the quality of graduates do not demonstrate the appropriate capability at their work places; holistic approach to the learner balanced development in the digital environment is seldom addressed. The article synthesizes the most common pedagogical problems triggered by the difusion of digital technologies in educational environment with the aim to highlight these and therefore shape or refine the scientific method of reaserch in pedagogy.Downloads
References
Alain, M. (2014). Trīs paaudzes – trīs dzīves un finanšu stāsti. Retrieved from http://www.monday.lv/tris-paaudzes-tris-dzives-un-finansu-stasti/
Barbieri, D.L.R.; Maxwell, K.; Mollard, B.; Karu, M.; Salanauskaitė, L., & Reingardė, J. (2018). Women and men in ICT: a chance for better work-life balance. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the EU. DOI: 10.2839/310959
Benade, L. (2015). Teachers’ Critical Reflective Practice in the Context of Twenty-first Century Learning. Open Review of Educational Research, 2(1), 42-54. DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2014.998159
Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (Eds). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed.). New York & London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://joshuakoop. weebly.com/uploads/5/6/3/6/56367463/rethinking_ pedagogy_for_a_digital_age.pdf
Biggins, D., Holley D., Evangelinos G., & Zezulkova M. (2016). Digital Competence and Capability Frameworks in the Context of Learning, Self-Development, and HE Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/debbieholley1/digital-competence-and-capability-frameworks-in-the-context-of-learning-selfdevelopment-and-he-pedagogy-eleot-2016
Blayone, J.B., Mykhailenko, O., Kavtaradze, M., Kokhan, M., vanOostveen, R., & Barber, W. (2018). Profiling the digital readiness of higher education students for transformative online learning in the post-soviet nations of Georgia and Ukraine. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 37. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0119-9
Blayone, T., Mikhailenko, O., Ušča, S., Abuže, A., Romanets, I., & Oleksiiv, M. (2019). Exploring the dispositional readiness of Latvian and Ukrainian university learners for digitalised work toward Industry 4.0. Preprint.
Blayone, T., vanOostveen, R., Barber, W., DiGiuseppe, M., & Childs, E. (2017). Democratizing digital learning: Theorizing the Fully Online Learning Community model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(13), 1-16. Retrieved from doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0051-4
Claveria, K. (2019). Generation Z Statistics: New Report on the Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors of the Post-Millennials. Retrieved from https://www.visioncritical.com/blog/generation-z-statistics
Coeckelberg, M. (2010). Human Development or Human Enhancement? A Methodological reflection on Capabilities and the Evaluation of Information Technologies. Ethics Information Technologies 13(2), 81-92. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-010-9231-9
Daniela, L. (Ed.) (2019). Didactics of Smart Pedagogy. Smart Pedagogy for Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer Natura Switzerlang AG.
Daniela, L., Strode, R., & Kalniņa, D. (2019). Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) in Higher Education: Where Are We Now? In Knowledge-Intensive Economies and Opportunities for Social, Organizational, and Technological Growth (pp. 12-24). IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-7347-0.ch002
Francis, T. & Hoefel, F. (2018) ‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies. McKinsey & Company. Open interactive popup Downloadable Resources. Article (PDF-2MB).
Furlong, J. & Whitty, G. (2017). Knowledge Traditions in the Study of Education. In Whitty, G.& Furlong, J. (Eds). Knowledge and the Study of Education – an international exploration. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 27, 1, 13-57
Gilabert, P. (2014). Human rights, Human Dignity, and Power. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/34660672/Human_Rights_Dignity_and_Power.
Grudin, J. (2017). From tool to partner: The evolution of human-computer interaction. Williston, Vermont: Morgan and Claypool.
Klopfer, E. & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives: the development of augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203–228. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6.
Levin, D. (2019). Generation Z: Who They Are, in Their Own Words. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/gen-z-in-their-words.html
Loughran, J. & Russel T. (2017). Comenzando a entender la enseñanza como una disciplina. In Russel, T., Fuentealba, R. Y Hirmas, C.(Comp.) Formadores de Formadores, descubriendo la propia voz a través del Self-Study (Educators, discovering their own voice through the Self-Study) (pp. 65-76). Santiago, Chile. Pieejams:Retrieved from https://oei.cl/Oei/Noticia/formadores-de-formadores-descubriendo-la-propia-voz
Mitzham, C. & Schatzberg, E. (2009). Defining Technology and the Engineering Sciences. In Meijers, A. (Ed). Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (pp. 27-64). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Capabilities, Entitlements, Rights: Supplementation and Critique. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 12(2011), 23-37.
OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: first results from TALIS. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/43023606.pdf
Oosterlaken, I. (2015). Technology_and_Human_Development. London & New Yourk: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/8789916/Technology_and_Human_Devel opment?auto_ download =true&email_work_card=view-paper
Pollard, A. (Ed.) (2010). Professionalism and Pedagogy: a contemporary opportunity. A commentary by TLRP and GICE. London: TLRP. Retrieved from http://www.tirp.org/pub/documents/ TLRPGTCEPProf...
Ponce, R.S., Cancio J.A.P., & Sanchez J.E. (2017). The Capabilities Approach and Values of Sustainability: Towards an Inclusive Pedagogy. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3(2), 76-81. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.12.008
Richert, A. (2018). Socializing with robots. In K. North, R. Maier, & O. Haas (Eds.), Knowledge management in digital change: New findings and practical cases (pp. 97-110). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Rubene, Z. & Strods R. (2016). Transformations of Digital Culture in the Doctoral Studies in Pedagogy: The Case of the University of Latvia. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 38, 143-158.
Russell, T. (2019). Are Teacher Education Practices Really Changing? An Editor's Farewell. Studying Teacher Education 15(3), 255-259. DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2019.1675433
Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A.J.A.M., & van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics. DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
Steinberg, S., & Kincheloe, J. (2010). Power, emancipation, and complexity: Employing critical theory. Power and Education, 2, 140–151. DOI:10.2304/power.2010.2.2.140
Šteinberga, A. (Red.) (2019). Skolotāja professionālā identitāte. Rīga: RTU.
The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education (2011). Assessment, Teaching, and Learning, 1(2). Retrieved from www.gordoncommission.org
Thomson Reuters. (2014). The World in 2025: 10 Predictions of Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.infocomanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/World-2025_thomsonreuters2025.pdf
Tubbs, N. (2012). The New Teacher: an Introduction to teaching in comprehensive education. London: Routledge.
Waring, M. & Evans, C. (2015). Understanding Pedagogy: developing a critical approach to teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
Žogla, I. (2017). Pedagoģija and Educational Studies: competing traditions in the study of education in Latvia. In: Whitty, G.& Furlong, J. (Eds). Knowledge and the Study of Education – an international exploration. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education (27)1, 103-124.
Žogla, I. (2018a). Science of Pedagogy: Theory of Educational Discipline and Practice. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(2), 31-42.
Žogla, I. (2018b). Pedagoģijas zinātne un izglītības zinātnes. LU Raksti, 816. sērija. Pedagoģija un skolotāju izglītība. Red. B.Kaļķē & I. Ķestere. Rīga: LU. ISSN 1407-2157. https://doi.org/10.22364/ped.luraksti.816.07
Žogla, I. (2019). Principles of Learner Learning-Centred Didactic in the Context of Technology-Enhanced Learning. // Daniela, L. (Ed). Didactics of Smart Pedagogy. Springer: Nature Switzerland AG 2019. Pp. 71-94. DOI 978-3-030-01551-0_4, © 2019
