Servicios personalizados
Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Enviar articulo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Similares en
SciELO 
Permalink
Introduction
The innovative activity of an educational institution is directly related to the willingness of a teacher to develop and implement pedagogical innovations (innovations) in the educational process. In practice, a significant part of teachers, regardless of their experience and level of qualification, have serious difficulties in implementing innovative activities (in the conceptual vision of the development of pedagogical processes, in self-determination and self-realization as the subject of transformations of pedagogical reality). All this complicates the process of their adaptation and professional growth in the new educational situation. In such conditions, the importance of forming the teacher’s readiness for innovative activity in the system of methodological work of the school is growing (Zolotaya, 2010).
Modern research proves that readiness is a fundamental condition for the successful implementation of any activity. Psychological support of motivational readiness of teachers for innovative activity (Podvigina, 2011).
The backbone factor of the teacher’s readiness for innovative activity is the need for transformation, improvement of pedagogical activity through an indirect attitude to his profession and to pupils. We understand the teacher’s willingness to innovate as a complex personal and professional characteristic of the teacher, which determines his focus on the development of his own professional activity, the activity and independence of development, creative implementation, the creation of new methods and methods of pedagogical work that have an innovative focus (Voropaeva, 2014).
Dyachenko and Kandybovich, in their studies characterize readiness as a psychological attitude towards the implementation of Voropaeva’s activities (2014). Analyzing readiness with this approach, we can distinguish several components that show a complex mental education. The first is the cognitive process, which reflects the main areas of activity. The next component is emotional properties that ambiguously affect a person, activating his psychological and physical activity. The third is the volitional component that assists in the commission of difficult actions in the process of achieving the goal.
The functional approach (Ilyin, Ibatova & Ippolitova, 2018) consists in the assumption that readiness is seen as a specific mental state of the individual. In this approach, readiness is considered in a temporary state, as short-term or long-term, in this prevailing current state mental functions are activated. Explains how the ability to mobilize oneself mentally and physically.
Pushkin and Nersesyan proposed the following structure in the form of components of readiness for professional activity: the first is the mental orientation of the personality, the second is the integral psychophysiological component, and the third component is implemented as a structure of actions.
The analysis of functional and personal approaches showed the inconsistency of differentiation of the phenomenon of readiness. In modern conditions, scientists no longer consider readiness only as a mental state or as a quality of a person, but present it as an integrative quality of a person.
The readiness of a teacher for innovative activity is understood by us as a combination of personal and professional qualities that contribute to the effective solution of educational problems in the field of innovation. We, like V. A. Slastenin, consider the structure of readiness for innovative activity as a combination of personal and operational aspects. The totality of the necessary personal, professionally important personality traits creates the innovative potential of the teacher, expresses readiness for improving pedagogical activity. But, unlike the scientist, we believe that reaching the innovative level of pedagogical activity requires personal reflection; the accumulation of knowledge, their transition to a higher level of consistency, which makes it possible to see a holistic picture of the world, the manifestation of general patterns in the pedagogical process. During this process, one's own abilities for pedagogical activity are reassessed, the teacher learns new ways of acting, and the cognitive component goes into a new form with different qualitative characteristics. In our study, we distinguish the following components of the teacher’s readiness for innovation.
The relevance of the study is determined by one of the main contradictions between the public interests associated with educational innovations and the lack of a conscious interest in the majority of teachers in the development of innovations, which determines their focus on the creative improvement of the pedagogical process and professional self-development.
Methodology
The concept of innovative processes as applied to changes in the economy was first described by Schumpetor at the beginning of the 20th century (1911). And in the 30s, continuing the analysis of the economy, Schumpetor and Mensch introduced the term “innovation” and the terms “innovation process” and “innovation potential” associated with it. Authors understood innovation as the embodiment of a scientific discovery in a specific technology or product. The subject of innovation studies was the economic and social laws of the creation and dissemination of scientific and technological innovations. But if economic innovation has an unambiguous measure - the profit obtained after the introduction of innovation, then in the social sphere, especially in education, it is impossible to measure innovation in monetary terms. In this area it is necessary to consider how innovations improve the quality of life. Only the concept of quality of life or a quality of education closer to the topic is multidimensional and therefore does not have an unambiguous definition.
According to Goremyko (2008), there is another approach - innovations are caused by the crisis of education and are a reaction to this crisis, which means that innovations are designed to solve the accumulated problems in education and suggest ways to solve them. Solving problems in education will also help improve the quality of education, where the quality of education is understood as a characteristic of the education system, which reflects the degree to which real educational results are in line with the educational process and regulatory requirements, social and personal expectations.
So, innovations in pedagogy, on the one hand, have become a necessity, and on the other, an extremely risky area due to the lack of simple and clear assessment criteria. This situation is characteristic of all innovation. In education, the concept of innovation appeared only in the 50s of the last century, in our country they turned to it in the late 70s. So, E.A. Yamburg noted that the 80s became the golden age of Russian pedagogy. The desire to introduce new ideas into educational practice (changing goals, objectives, content of education; the implementation of new forms, methods, technologies of training and education) resulted in an “innovative boom” at the end of the 20th century.
Currently, the concept of "innovation" means innovation, novelty, change; innovation as a means and process involves the introduction of something new. In relation to the pedagogical process, innovation means the introduction of a new goal, content, methods and forms of training and education, the organization of joint activities of a teacher and a student (Zolotaya, 2010).
Questions of pedagogical innovation, the search for optimal techniques and methods of training and education were widely developed in the works of domestic and foreign teachers. The aim of the study is to identify, on the basis of a systematic approach, the levels of formation of a teacher’s readiness for innovative educational activities. The objectives of the study are to determine the criteria for the teacher’s readiness for innovative educational activities, analyze the features of focused educational activities and identify recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the educational process. Research methods and organization: theoretical analysis and generalization, systematization; analysis of scientific literature on pedagogy.
Results
In education, the concept of innovation appeared only in the 50s of the last century, in our country they turned to it in the late 70s. Of course, attempts to radically change the functions of education and give it the features of social practice have been undertaken before - first in the post-revolutionary and then in the post-perestroika periods. Both attempts failed, but the second formed a modern attitude towards innovation and innovative practice in education. Until the end of the 80s there was only one way to make changes in educational practice: through the scientific laboratories of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences and a long experimental development. The years of perestroika undermined the ideological monopoly of the Communist Party and created the conditions for the destruction of the monopoly of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences to introduce changes in educational practice. In fact, there were two centers that could produce innovative processes: official pedagogical science and school practice.
Today, innovations are not separate phenomena and not linear chains, they are systemic and orient both towards the achievement of a common result in education and the success of a single educational institution, and ensure its development. Every year, innovative educational activities are becoming increasingly widespread. There is a growing need for significant updating of the content of education, and this is being realized in numerous innovative initiatives “from below”.
Innovative educational activity is the activity due to which the educational process develops (whereas traditional educational activity is the activity due to which the stability of the educational process is ensured) (Lobok, 2008).
Speaking about innovations in education, it should be noted that there are reasons that cause difficulties in mastering innovations and affect the effectiveness of the innovation process. One of the main reasons that affects the innovation processes in the school is the willingness of teachers to innovate.
By the readiness for innovative activity, we will further understand the totality of the teacher’s qualities that determine his focus on the development of his own pedagogical activity and the activity of the entire school staff, as well as his ability to identify urgent problems of student education, find and implement effective ways to solve them (Zolotaya, 2010).
The first component of a teacher’s readiness for innovative activity is the presence of a motive for inclusion in this activity. The motive gives a sense of activity to a person. Depending on the content of the motive, innovative activity can have different meanings for different people.
Participation in innovation can be perceived:
as a way to earn extra income;
as a way to avoid possible stress in relations with management and colleagues in case of refusal to participate
as a way to achieve recognition and respect from management and colleagues;
how fulfillment of one's professional duty;
as a way of realizing one’s creative potential and self-development.
The lack of motivation indicates the teacher’s unpreparedness for innovative activity in terms of its focus. A material motive or a motive for avoiding failure corresponds to a poor readiness for innovation. A high level of readiness for innovation corresponds to a mature motivational structure, in which the values of self-realization and self-development play a leading role.
The teacher’s focus on the development of his professional abilities and on achieving the best results possible is a necessary condition for the innovative activity to acquire a sense of value and purpose, and not a means to implement some other motives. Without the awareness of participation in innovation, as a value for yourself personally, there can be no high readiness for this activity.
The second component of the preparedness under consideration is a complex of knowledge about modern requirements for the results of school education, innovative models and educational technologies, in other words, about everything that determines the needs and development opportunities of existing pedagogical practice. The teacher’s sensitivity to problems is determined primarily by how he understands the goals of school education in general and from them derives requirements for the results of his work. If these requirements do not meet the highest standards, then the teacher will not see problems in the results of his work. In the same way, a teacher who is poorly oriented in innovative models of education and innovative programs and technologies will not see the shortcomings of the pedagogical system of the school and its practice, and the possibilities of eliminating them. But it’s not enough just to know about the existence of innovative educational models, programs, technologies. Any change in activity should be not only relevant, but also realistic, i.e. relevant to the actual conditions at the school. If, for example, the teacher wants to build his work, implementing the technology of developing, problem or research training, and in general the pedagogical process in the school is built on the knowledge-oriented model, then he should be aware that in these conditions only partial application is possible innovative technology.
The third component of the teacher’s readiness for innovative activity is a combination of knowledge and methods for solving the tasks of this activity that the teacher owns, i.e. competence in the field of pedagogical innovation. A teacher well prepared for innovative activities in this aspect:
owns a complex of concepts of pedagogical innovation;
understands the place and role of innovation in an educational institution, its relationship with educational activities;
knows the basic approaches to the development of pedagogical systems of the school; - knows how to learn the experience of innovative teachers;
is able to critically analyze pedagogical systems, curricula, technologies and didactic teaching aids;
knows how to develop and justify innovative proposals for improving the educational process;
knows how to develop innovation projects;
knows how to set goals for experimental work and plan it;
knows how to work in working groups of implementation projects and conducting experiments;
knows how to analyze and evaluate the school’s innovation system;
knows how to analyze and evaluate himself as a subject of innovative activity.
The fourth component - creative - is formed in the entire training system. A special place in this is given to pedagogical practice and the educational and research activities of future teachers, their inclusion in active innovative practice. It includes the presence of the teacher’s attitude to innovation not as a combination of ready-made forms found in practice, but as a transformation, change (development in new complex syntheses according to one’s own personality and characteristics of the student’s team), as well as the presence of scientific reflection (ratio innovation system with research objectives), necessary for the teacher to comprehend his own innovative experience, the criterion of its formation is the readiness of the future teacher to implement the system volume of innovative activity (Podvigina, 2011).
Conclusions
Thus, the readiness for innovative activity in modern conditions is the most important quality of a professional teacher, without which it is impossible to achieve a high level of pedagogical skill.
Any innovation process is affected by a whole range of reasons that arise at different stages of its implementation. The problem is complicated by the fact that the reasons, reinforcing each other, reduce the potential of the introduced innovation, contribute to the emergence of secondary, including negative consequences for the entire educational institution.
But one of the main reasons that affects the innovation processes in the school is the willingness of teachers to innovate. The problem of the formation of psychological readiness and the readiness of the teacher as a whole for innovative activity arose parallel to the large-scale deployment of innovative processes, since the teacher in these conditions is considered as the subject of innovative activity and its organizer. The formation of teacher readiness for innovative activities is equally relevant for educational institutions that train teachers, and for practical teachers.
