Prospective areas of didactic research: А problem statement.

Introduction. Current educational practice largely functions independently of didactics: decisions on the selection of content, the methods and forms of instruction are often made at different levels and in different areas of education without a conceptual substantiation. This does not necessarily mean the educators’ lack of knowledge, it rather points at the urgency of updating didactic research, including objects and phenomena that are relevant and have not been extensively studied yet.

The aim of the present publication is to pose relevant problems of didactic research, based on the challenges rooted in the development of educational practice.

Methodology and research methods. This research is based on systemic, interdisciplinary, and anthropological approaches. Research methods include analysis, synthesis, systematisation, modelling, idealisation, forecasting.

Results. The authors state the need to expand the range of issues covered by didactic research. Additionally, the authors highlighted didactic research problems related to learning across all levels of the educational ladder, to a wide range of contexts of educational practice: psychological and didactic characteristics of a modern agent of learning; didactic foundations for the selection of educational content in the context of the transformation of the educational environment of the digital era; the expansion of conceptual and terminological toolbox of didactics; contextual features of didactic principles in diverse areas of educational practice; didactical aims and functions of non-traditional learning formats; didactic foundations and the range of the teacher’s roles in various learning formats; the development of didactics for teacher training.

The directions of promising didactic research are identified. The authors conclude the necessity for broadening research area to cover problems facing didactics: inclusion of phenomena and processes that were left out of the scope of traditional didactic research; enhancing the role of interdisciplinary research on learning, enhancing the versatility of didactic concepts and their scientific validity; a didactic study of specific innovative educational practices, identifying the feasibility and possibilities of their dissemination in different areas of education.

Scientific novelty. The article describes educational practices, which are not covered by didactic studies. The authors identify and present conceptual gaps, which challenge didactics to expand and enrich its conceptual toolkit. Several paradoxes are highlighted as conceptual contradictions, which indicate the gaps in modern didactic knowledge: paradoxes of the learning actor, of learning outcomes, of teacher expertise. These paradoxes prompt to update didactics as the theory of education.

Practical significance. The development of didactics in the areas considered in the article will make it possible to improve the educational process on a theoretically verified basis, enhance opportunities, to reduce the risks, and to increase the effectiveness of innovations.

1. Danilyuk A. Ya. Promising directions of didactics development. Pedagogika = Pedagogy. 2007; (6): 43–54. (In Russ.)

2. Uman A. I. Trends in the development of modern didactics. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya pedagogy = Domestic and Foreign Pedagogy. 2012; 5: 38–48. (In Russ.)

3. Makarova N. S. The concept of the development of didactic knowledge about the educational process in higher education. Sovremennyye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya = Modern Problems of Science and Education [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Aug 25]; 5. Available from: http://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=14729 (In Russ.)

4. Tarkhanova I. Yu. Modern regulators of the formation of new didactics of higher education. Yaroslavskiy pedagogicheskiy vestnik = Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. 2019; 2 (107): 45–52. (In Russ.)

5. Tagunova I. A. World trends in the development of school education. Pedagogika = Pedagogy. 2019; 6: 106–114. (In Russ.)

6. Zankov L. V. Obuchenie i razvitie = Education and development. Moscow: Publishing House Pedagogika; 1975. 440 p. (In Russ.)

7. Davydov V. V. Teorija razvivajushhego obuchenija = Theory of developmental learning. Moscow: Publishing House INTOR; 1996. 554 p. (In Russ.)

8. Lerner I. Ya. Problemnoe obuchenie = Problem-based learning. Moscow: Publishing House Znanie; 1974. 64 p. (In Russ.)

9. Makhmutov M. I. Teorija i praktika problemnogo obuchenija = Theory and practice of problem-based education. Kazan: Publishing House Tatknigoizdat; 1972. 551 p. (In Russ.)

10. Schukina G. I. Problema poznavatel’nogo interesa v pedagogike = The problem of cognitive interest in pedagogy. Moscow: Publishing House Pedagogika; 1971. 351 p. (In Russ.)

11. Erdniev P. M. Ukrupnenie didakticheskih edinic kak tehnologija obuchenija: v 2 ch. = The enlargement of didactic units as technology of education. In 2 parts. Moscow: Publishing House Prosveschenie; 1992. P. 1. 176 p. P. 2. 257 p. (In Russ.)

12. Zagvyazinsky V. I., Strokova T. A. Innovative fatigue. Ekonomika obrazovaniya = Economics of Education. 2015; (2): 54–59. (In Russ.)

13. Remorenko I. M., Elkonin B. D., Barannikov K. A., Klarin M. V., et al. Dejatel’nostnyj podhod v obrazovanii. Kn. 1. = Activity approach in education. Book 1. Moscow: Publishing House Avtorskij klub; 2018. 360 p. (In Russ.)

14. Kostromina S. N., Bordovskaya N. V., Iskra N. N., Chuvgunova O. A., Gnedykh D. S., Kurmakayeva D. M. Neuroscience, psychology, and education. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal = Psychological Journal. 2015; 36 (4): 61–70. (In Russ.)

15. Osmolovskaya I. M. Prospects for didactic research in the context of education development. In: Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v fokuse istoricheskoj retrospektivy i prognosticheskoj perspektivy: materialy Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii, posvjashhennoj 100-letiju vysshego pedagogicheskogo obrazovanija vo Vladimirskoj oblasti. 22 nojabrja 2019 g. = Teacher Education in the Focus of Historical Retrospective and Prognostic Perspective. Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 100th Anniversary of Higher Pedagogical Education in the Vladimir Region; 2019 Nov 22; Vladimir. Vladimir: Vladimir State University named after Alexander and Nikolay Stoletovs; 2019. p. 10–18. (In Russ.)

16. Ivanova S. V. Problemy razvitija didakticheskih sistem: filosofsko-metodologicheskij kontekst = Problems of didactic systems development: Philosophical and methodological context. Moscow: FGNU ITIP RAO, Institute for Effective Technologies; 2012. 160 p. (In Russ.)

17. Osmolovskaya I. M., Klarin M. V. Didaktika = Didactics. In: Bol’shaja rossijskaja jenciklopedija = Great Russian Encyclopedia. V. 9. Moscow: Bol’shaja rossijskaja jenciklopedija; 2007. (In Russ.)

18. Klarin M. V. Innovacionnye modeli obuchenija. Issledovanie mirovogo opyta = Innovative models of education. A worldwide study. Moscow: Publishing House Luch; 2016. 640 p. (In Russ.)

19. Donker A. S., De Boer H., Kostons D., Dignath C., Werf M. Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2013; 11. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002

20. Hattie J. A. C. Nacional’noe obrazovanie = Visible learning. Synthesis of the results of over 800 meta-studies on the achievements of schoolchildren. Moscow: Publishing House Nacional’noe obrazovanie; 2017. 432 p. (In Russ.)

21. Hattie J. What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. London: Pearson; 2015. Vol. VI. 29 p.

22. Severs J. John Hattie takes on his Visible Learning critics. TES [Internet]. 2020 Jan 22 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.tes.com/news/john-hattie-takes-his-visible-learning-critics

23. Osmolovskaya I. M. On scientific status of didactics. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2014; 9 (118): 85–97. (In Russ.)

24. Podoljak O. O., Kuznecova E. Ju. Konkurentnaja razvedka = Competitive intelligence. Ekaterinburg: Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin; 2012. 93 p. (In Russ.)

25. Krylova O. N. Novaja didaktika sovremennogo uroka v uslovijah vvedenija FGOS OOO = New didactics of a modern lesson in the context of the introduction of Federal State Educational Standards of Basic General Education. St. Petersburg: Publishing House KARO; 2014. 144 p. (In Russ.)

26. Gorobets V. V., Kovalev V. V. “Clip thinking” as a reflection of perceptual processes and sensory memory. Mir psikhologii = World of Psychology. 2015; 2: 94–100. (In Russ.)

27. Bencsik A., Horváth-Csikós G., Juhász T. Y. Z Generations at workplaces. Journal of Competitiveness. 2016; 8 (3): 90–106.

28. Girenok F. I. Klipovoe soznanie = Clip consciousness. Moscow: Prospect; 2016. 256 p. (In Russ.)

29. Staritsyna O. A. Clip thinking vs education. Who is to blame and what to do? Azimut nauchnykh issledovaniy: pedagogika i psikhologiya = Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology. 2018; 7 (2): 270–274. (In Russ.)

30. Hillman T., Rensfeldt A. B., Ivarsson J. Brave new platforms: A possible platform future for highly decentralised schooling. Learning, Media and Technology. 2020; 45 (1): 7–16. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2020.1683748

31. Williamson B., Eynon R., Potter J. Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the corona-virus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]; 45 (2): 107–114. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641

32. Nicholas A. J. Preferred learning methods of the Millennial Generation. International Journal of Learning. 2008; 15 (6): 27–34.

33. Nicholas A. J. Preferred learning methods of Generation Z [Internet] 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/fac_staff_pub/74/

34. Falikman M. V. Digital mediation: New frontiers in the cultural-historical approach. Voprosy psikhologii = Psychology Issues. 2020; 66 (2): 3–14. (In Russ.)

35. Baturay M. H. An overview of the world of MOOCs. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Aug 25]; 174: 427–433. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815007363#:~:text=The%20term%20’MOOCs’%20represents%20open,course%20or%20to%20be%20educated

36. Rubtsova O. V. Digital media as a new means of mediation (Part One). Кul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2019; 15 (3): 117–124. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2019150312 (In Russ.)

37. Bond J., Dirkin K. Instructional design: Study of a widening scope of practice. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Aug 25]; XXI (4), Winter. Available from: https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter214/bond_dirkin214.html

38. Kurt S. Instructional Design. Educational Technology [Internet] 2016 [cited 2020 Aug 25]; December 9. Available from: https://educationaltechnology.net/instructional-design/

39. Knyazeva E. N. The wisdom of the environment: The ideas of F. de Saussure, F. Guattari, R. Thom in the context of the development of biosemiotics. Phisosophsakie nauki = Philosophical Sciences. 2016; 9: 61–76. (In Russ.)

40. Alexandrov Yu. I. Psychophysiological laws of learning and teaching methods. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal = Psychological Journal. 2012; 33 (6): 5–19. (In Russ.)

41. Klarin M. V. Cognitive didactic research: Analysis of the problem field. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya pedagogika = National and Foreign Pedagogy. 2017; 1 (6): 94–103. (In Russ.)

42. Popov A. A., Ermakov S. V. Didaktika otkrytogo obrazovanija = Didactics of open education. Moscow: Publishing House Nacional’nyj knizhnyj centr; 2019. 252 p. (In Russ.)

43. Ermolenko V. A., Ivanova S. V., Klarin M. V., Chernoglazkin S. Yu. Innovacionnoe razvitie obrazovatel’nyh programm nepreryvnogo obrazovanija: metodologija i praktika = Innovative development of educational programs of continuing education: Methodology and practice. Ed. by V. A. Ermolenko. Moscow: Institute for Effective Technologies; 2013. 186 p. (In Russ.)

44. Blömer L., Voigt C., Droit A., Hoppe U. Agile development of a flipped classroom course [Internet]. In: Hattingh M., Matthee M., Smuts H., Pappas I., Dwivedi Y., Mäntymäki M. (eds.). Responsible design, implementation and use of information and communication technology. I3E 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 12066. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. p. 581–592. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-44999-5_48

45. Pedler M., Abbott C. Facilitating action learning: A practitioner’s guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2013. 216 p.

46. Asadova N. Z. Project method: Three matryoshkas. Obrazovatel’naya politika = Educational Policy. 2019; (1–2): 50–60. (In Russ.)

47. Condliffe B., Visher M. G., Bangser M. R., Drohojowsk, S., Saco L. Project-based learning: A literature review [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. 78 p. Available from: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Project-Based_Learning-LitRev_Final.pdf

48. Polat E. S., Bukharkina M. Yu., Moiseeva M. V. Teorija i praktika distancionnogo obuchenija = Theory and practice of distance learning. Moscow: Publishing House Akademija; 2004. 416 p. (In Russ.)

49. Zhonggen Y. Blended learning over two decades. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE). 2015; 11 (3): 1–19. DOI:10.4018/IJICTE.2015070101

50. Pinskaya M. A., Ulanovskaya I. M. Novye formy ocenivanija. Nachal’naja shkola = New forms of assessment. Elementary School. 3rd ed. Moscow: Publishing House Prosveschenie; 2016. 80 p. (In Russ.)

51. Ziskin K. E., Petrovsky V. A. Motivating assessment. Science and School. 2016; 5: 14–23. (In Russ.)

52. Andersson C., Palm T. Characteristics of improved formative assessment practice. Education Inquiry. 2017; 8 (2): 104–122. DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185

53. Hwang G.-J., Yin C., Chu H.-C. The era of flipped learning: Promoting active learning and higher order thinking with innovative flipped learning strategies and supporting systems. Interactive Learning Environments. 2019; 27 (8): 991–994. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1667150

54. Barannikov K. A. Kompetencii v obrazovatel’noj praktike = Competencies in educational practice. In: Dejatel’nostnyj podhod v obrazovanii = Activity approach in education. Book 1. Comp. by V. A. Lvovsky. Moscow: Publishing House Avtorskij klub; 2018. p. 37–55. (In Russ.)

55. Edmunds J., Arshavky N., Glennie E., Charles K., Rice O. The relationship between project-based learning and rigor in STEM-focused high schools. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning [Internet] 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 25]; 11 (1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1618

56. Jarche H. Learning in complexity and chaos [Internet]. 2019 Jan 21 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: https://jarche.com/2019/01/learning-in-complexity-and-chaos/

57. Elkonin B. D. Productive action. Cul’turno-istoricheskaya psychologia = Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2019; 15 (1): 116–122. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2019150112 (In Russ.)

58. Verbitsky A. A. Teorija i tehnologii kontekstnogo obrazovanija = Theory and technology of context education. Moscow: Moscow Pedagogical State University; 2017. 268 p. (In Russ.)

59. Psihologija i pedagogika kontekstnogo obrazovanija = Psychology and pedagogy of contextual education. Scientific editor A. A. Verbitsky. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Publishing House Nestor-Istoriya; 2018. 416 p. (In Russ.)

60. Klarin M. V. Innovative teaching in adult education. Problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniya = Problems of Modern Education. 2015; 4: 5–27. (In Russ.)

61. Liyanagunawardena T. R., Williams S. A. Elderly learners and massive open online courses: A review. Interactive Journal of Medical Research. 2016 Jan–Mar; 5 (1): e1. DOI: 10.2196/ijmr.4937

62. Lipphardt A., Leen-Thomele E., Coroian E., Held P. Older adults and learning technology: Innovations in adults’ and seniors’ education. Innovation in Aging. 2017 Jul; 1, Issue suppl_1: 956. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.3440

63. Morrison D., McCutheon J. Empowering older adults’ informal, self-directed learning: Harnessing the potential of online personal learning networks. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 2019; 14: 10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0104-5

64. Klarin M. V., Choukhno J., Kosyaeva T. Shift from education to development: Leaders and coaches in search of shared wisdom. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education. 2016; 4 (2): 23–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1602023C

65. Lazarev V. S. Project and pseudo-project activities at school. Narodnoye obrazovaniye = Public Education. 2014; 4: 130–136. (In Russ.)

66. Ivanova S. V. Crisis of didactics: To deny or to overcome? Obrazovaniye i obshchestvo = Education and Society. 2017; 4: 5–9. (In Russ.)

67. Klarin M. V. Twenty-first century educational theory and the challenges of modern education: Appealing to the heritage of the general teaching theory of the secondary educational curriculum and the learning process. Russian Education & Society. 2016; 58 (4): 299–312. DOI: 10.1080/10609393.2016.1250510