Supporting the Development of Digitally Competent VET Teachers in Serbia and Russia

Introduction. In the modern educational space, an intensive digital transformation is currently taking place, which imposes new requirements for teacher competencies. This determines the relevance of setting goals and solving problems in order to develop up-to-date models for improving the qualifications of teachers of vocational education and training (VET). The paper discusses the current state of the development of digital competencies of teachers and teachers of Serbia and Russia in line with the European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) and the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigСompЕdu). The paper includes an analysis of the peculiarities of vocational education and training systems, as well as the directions of further training of teachers, conducted by participants in the international project “Professional Development of Vocation Education Teachers with European Practices (Pro-VET)”. In order to better understand national contexts, the content of the reports of the participating countries of the project was analysed in the context of the EU policy and strategy for the development of digital competency of VET teachers. In this article, the authors focus on exploring digital competencies required of VET teachers within the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigСompЕdu) to identify digital competencies and development needs of Serbian and Russian VET teachers when working in online learning environments.
The aims of the research are the following: 1) to compare the educational needs of Russian and Serbian VET teachers in the development of their digital pedagogical competencies; 2) to identify the theoretical and practical base for VET teachers’ digitally competent development programme design in the context of online learning according to the best European practices in the field of VET.
Methodology and research methods. The development of the model was based on learning theories, didactics and practical approaches to soft skills development in online learning environments. The research has been conducted by the means of document analysis, theoretical analysis and synthesis methods, comparative method, modelling method and expert estimation method.
Results and scientific novelty. Key aspects of VET teacher training systems in Russia and Serbia are compared and needs in development of digital pedagogical skills of Russian and Serbian VET teachers are identified. A developed model of VET teachers’ digitally competent development programme design in the context of online learning according to best European practices in this fields is represented by two components: structural and functional. The structural component of VET teachers’ digitally competent development model contains: learning theories and didactics, adult learning theories, soft skills development approaches in online learning, learning outcomes development approaches. The functional component of the model contains: national and European educational policy, strategies in the field of digitalisation of education and the development of digital competencies of teachers, European Union policies related to online learning; pedagogical, psychological and didactical design parameters of the content of advanced training programmes in the context of e-learning.
Practical significance. The demonstrated model is being tested in the framework of the implementation of the international Pro-VET project supported by ERASMUS+. Methodological approaches, procedure and tools of VET teachers’ digitally competent development are being developed and tested. The application of digitally competent development programmes ensures the transparency of training and allows for the correlation of national and international training programmes as well as the development of academic and professional mobility of VET teachers. The process of designing such educational training programmes in online environment for VET teachers has begun at some universities in Russia and Serbia (participants of the project). The developed online training programmes can be used as a basis to design more quality online courses beyond the Pro-VET project in the sphere of professional development for VET teachers.

1. Kools M., Stoll L. What makes a school a learning organisation? Paris: OECD Publishing; 2016. 93 p.

2. Redecker C. European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017. 95 p. DOI: 10.2760/159770, JRC107466

3. Davydova N. N., Dorozhkin E. M., Fedorov V. A. Development of organizations’ managerial potential under conditions of network interaction. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2020; 15 (01): 16–29. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v15i01.11333

4. Vershitskaya E. R, Mikhaylova A. V., Gilmanshina S. I., Dorozhkin E. M., Epaneshnikov V. V. Present-day management of universities in Russia: Prospects and challenges of e-learning. Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 25: 611–621. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-019-09978-0

5. Moskalenko M. R., Dorozhkin E. M., Tolstykh O. A., Marakulina U. E., Mustakimova M. V. Electronic learning resources and online education technology: Issues of effectiveness evaluation. International Journal of Engineering & Technology. 2018. 7 (2.13): 189–193. DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i2.13.11685

6. Papić-Blagojević N., Lungulov B., Milišić N. Professional development one of vocational teachers – developmental possibilities through projects of capacity building. In: Innovations in Modern Education: The XXVI Conference Trend; 2020 Feb 16-19; Kopaonik mountain, the Republic of Serbia. Kopaonik mountain, the Republic of Serbia; 2020. p. 450–453.

7. Maksimović I. Continuing professional development for vocational teachers and trainers in Serbia [Internet]. European Training Foundation; 2016 [cited 2020 May 25]. 44 p. Available from: https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/m/A87A22FCE871D3C2C1257FCD005F8D23_CPD%20Serbia.pdf

8. Ovesni K., Stanojevic J., Radović V. Informaciono-komunikacione tehnologije u usavršavanju nastavnika srednjih stručnih škola = Information and Communication Technologies in the Professional Development of Vocational School Teachers. Inovacije u nastavi. 2019; 32: 61–73. DOI: 10.5937/inovacije1903061O

9. Zhou M., Brown D. Educational learning theories [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2020 May 30]. 129 p. Available from: https://oer.galileo.usg.edu/education-textbooks/1

10. Reimann A. Behaviorist learning theory [Internet]. Wiley Online library; 2018 [cited 2020 May 28]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0155

11. Bruner J. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1990. 208 p.

12. Falikman M. V. Methodology of constructivism in the psychology of cognition. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya = Psychological Studies [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 May 28]; 9 (48): 3. Available from: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2016v9n48/1305-falikman48.html (In Russ.)

13. Vygotsky L. S. Sobranie sochinenij. Tom 2 = The collected works. V 2. Mosсow: Publishing House Pedagogika; 1982. 504 р. (In Russ.)

14. Piaget J. The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1954. 386 p.

15. Mattar J. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic, experiential, and anchored learning. RIED. Revisita Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia. 2018; 21 (2): 201–217. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.21.2.20055

16. Scheer A., Noweski C., Meinel C. Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal. 2012; 17 (3): 8–19.

17. Glasersfeld E. Thirty years radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations. 2005; 1 (1): 9–12.

18. Downes S. Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 May 29]. 616 p. Available from: http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf

19. Downes S. Recent work in connectivism. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 2020; 22 (2): 113–132. DOI: 10.2478/eurodl-2019-0014

20. Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2005; 2 (1): 3–10.

21. Siemens G. Knowing knowledge. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Lulu Press; 2006. 176 p.

22. Smidt H., Thornton M., Abhari K. The future of social learning: A novel approach to connectivism. In: 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – HICSS: Issues of Computer Science; 2017; Honolulu, USA. Honolulu, USA; 2017. p. 2116–2125. DOI:10.24251/HICSS.2017.256

23. Duke B., Harper G., Johnston, M. Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review Special Issue; 2013; New York. New York: The International HETL Association. p. 4–13.

24. Zimmerman B. Self-regulated learning: theories, measures, and outcomes. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: City University of New York Graduate Center; 2015. p. 541–546.

25. Panadero E. A. Review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8: 422. DOI:10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.00422

26. Gardner H. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books; 1983. 440 p.

27. Gardner H., Moran S. The science of multiple intelligences theory: a response to Lynn waterhouse. Educational Psychologist. 2006; 4 (4): 227–232.

28. Knowles M., Holton E., Swanson R. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 8th ed. London, New York: Routledge, Tailor and Francis Group; 2014. 402 p.

29. Mezirow J. How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In: Mezirow, J., Associates (eds.) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1990. p. 1–20.

30. Mezirow J., Taylor E. W. Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009. 336 p.

31. Christie M., Carey M., Robertson A., Grainger, P. Putting transformative learning theory into practice. Australian Journal of Adult Learning. 2015; 55 (1): 10–30.

32. Kolb D. Experiential learning theory and the learning style inventory: A reply to Freedman and Stumpf. The Academy of Management Review. 1981; 6 (2): 289–296. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1981.4287844

33. Kolb A. Y., Kolb D. A., Passarelli A., Sharma G. On becoming an experiential educator. Simulation & Gaming. 2014; 45: 204–234.

34. Merriam S., Caffarella R., Baumgartner L. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2020. 592 p.

35. Thurlings M., Evers A., Vermeulen M. Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 (3): 430–471. DOI: 10.3102/0034654314557949

36. Boyatzis R., Goleman D., Gerli F., Bonesso S. Emotional and social intelligence competencies for project management. In: Belack C., Filippo I., Filippo D. (eds.). Cognitive Readiness in Project Teams. New York: Routledge. 2019. p. 171–195. DOI: 10.4324/9780429490057-8

37. Gillies R. M. Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2016; 41 (3): 54–38. DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3

38. Bender W. N. Project-based learning: Differentiating instruction for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2012. 216 p.

39. Jamal A.-H., Tilchin O. Teachers’ accountability for adaptive project-based learning. American Journal of Educational Research. 2016; 4 (5): 420– 426. DOI: 10.12691/education-4-5-10

40. Cinque M. “Lost in translation”. Soft skills development in European countries. Tuning Journal for Higher Education. 2016; 3 (2): 389–427. DOI: 10.18543/tjhe-3(2)-2016pp389-427

41. Chang T.-W., Huang R., Kinshuk. Authentic learning through advances in technologies. Singapore: Springer; 2018. 216 p.

42. KennedyD., Hyland A., Ryan N. Learning outcomes and competencies. In: Using Learning Outcomes: Best of the Bologna Handbook. Berlin: DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH. 2017: p. 59–76.

43. Kennedy D. Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. Cork: University College Cork; 2007. 104 р.

44. Gibbs A., Kennedy D., Vickers A. Learning outcomes, degree profiles, Tuning project and competences. Journal of the European Higher Education Area. 2012; 15 (5): 71–87.

45. Kennedy D., McCarthy M. Learning outcomes in the ECTS users’ guide 2015: Some areas of concern. Journal of the European Higher Education Area [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 May 30]; 16: 1–16. Available from: https://www.ehea-journal.eu/en/handbuch/gliederung/#/Beitragsdetailansicht/206/547/Learning-Outcomes-in-the-ECTS-Users-Guide-2015-Some-Areas-of-Concern

46. Conrads J., Rasmussen M., Winters N., Geniet A., Langer L. Digital education policies in Europe and beyond: Key design principles for more effective policies. In: Redecker C., Kampylis P., Bacigalupo M., Punie Y. (eds.). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017. 202 p. DOI: 10.2760/462941

47. Ghirardini B. E-learning methodologies. A guide for designing and developing e-learning courses. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2011. 138 p.

48. De Jong F. Kennis interactive. Wageningen: Aeres Applied University Wageningen / Open university; 2019. 84 p.

49. De Jong F. e-Didactic / pedagogy important to use technology for online-learning technology: support for teachers and students [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 May 30]. 5 p. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340061914_e-Didacticpedagogy_important_to_use_technology_for_online-learning_technology_support_for_teachers_and_students

50. Mishra P., Koehler M. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 2006; 108 (6): 1017–1054.

51. Gros B. The dialogue between emerging pedagogies and emerging technologies [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 May 25]. 24 p. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281268835_The_Dialogue_Between_Emerging_Pedagogies_and_Emerging_Technologies. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_1