International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

The Specificity of Management in the Pedagogical System
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 2016 - Volume 11 Issue 7, pp. 2113-2128
  • Published Online: 01 Sep 2016
  • Article Views: 1001 | Article Download: 571
  • Open Access Full Text (PDF)
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Saudabaeva GS, Sholpankulova GK, Baytukenova SB, Aitzhanova RM. The Specificity of Management in the Pedagogical System. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2016;11(7), 2113-2128.
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Saudabaeva et al., 2016)
Reference: Saudabaeva, G. S., Sholpankulova, G. K., Baytukenova, S. B., & Aitzhanova, R. M. (2016). The Specificity of Management in the Pedagogical System. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(7), 2113-2128.
Chicago
In-text citation: (Saudabaeva et al., 2016)
Reference: Saudabaeva, Gulmira S., Gulnar K. Sholpankulova, Saule B. Baytukenova, and Roza M. Aitzhanova. "The Specificity of Management in the Pedagogical System". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2016 11 no. 7 (2016): 2113-2128.
Harvard
In-text citation: (Saudabaeva et al., 2016)
Reference: Saudabaeva, G. S., Sholpankulova, G. K., Baytukenova, S. B., and Aitzhanova, R. M. (2016). The Specificity of Management in the Pedagogical System. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(7), pp. 2113-2128.
MLA
In-text citation: (Saudabaeva et al., 2016)
Reference: Saudabaeva, Gulmira S. et al. "The Specificity of Management in the Pedagogical System". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 11, no. 7, 2016, pp. 2113-2128.
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Saudabaeva GS, Sholpankulova GK, Baytukenova SB, Aitzhanova RM. The Specificity of Management in the Pedagogical System. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2016;11(7):2113-28.

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to investigate the specifity of management in the pedagogical system. The main research methods were systems analysis, comparison, generalization, and concretization. The research analyzed and generalized the set of principles, methods, organizational forms, and technologies of pedagogical system management. The object (the activity of managed people) and product (pedagogical management) of an educational process manager were determined. It was found that the specificity of pedagogical management consists in the features of the object, product, tools, and results of the work of an educational manager, which is reflected in the level of education and development of students, i.e. the object of management. It was found that reasonable consideration of management specificity in the pedagogical system and management thereof requires a comprehensive approach: systematic and comprehensive analysis of the results of managerial and pedagogical activity; determination of regular connections; determination of specific conditions and problems; development of a dynamic structure and technology of management; substantiation of the principles, functions, methods, and organizational forms and techniques of management in the pedagogical system.

References

  • A Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. (2007) Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks. Published by: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Bredgade 43, DK-1260–Copenhagen. 18p.
  • Al-Qahtani, A. A., Higgins, S. (2013) Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students’ achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234.
  • Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-collegiality: restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. 348p.
  • Baimoldaev, T. M. (1996) Management as a method of modern school management. Almaty: Almaty Management University. 426p.
  • Bakhru, K. M., Sanghi T., Seema M. & Medury, Y. (2013, July) A Principal Component Analysis of Teaching Competencies Required for Management Education. Arth Prabhand: A Journal of Economics and Management, 2(7), 23-29.
  • Belyakov, S. A. (2008) Educational Policy and Management of Education. University Management: Practice and Analysis, 6, 12-31.
  • Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill International. 238p.
  • Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C. & Bichsel, J. (2014) The Current Ecosystem of Learning Management Systems in Education: Student, Faculty, and IT Perspectives. Direct access: http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
  • Duncan, J. W. (1996) Great Ideas in Management: Lessons from the Founders and Foundations of Managerial Practice. Translated from English. Moscow: Business. 272p.
  • Fathema, N. (2013) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) of an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to report web technology adoption behavior in higher education institutions: PhD Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States, 230p.
  • Fathema, N. & Sutton, K. (2013) Factors influencing faculty members’ Learning Management Systems adoption behavior: An analysis using the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Trends in Economics Management & Technology, 2(4), 20-28.
  • Focus on the Structure of Higher Education in Europe 2006/07. (2007) National Trends in the Bologna Process, EURYDICE, Brussels: The information network on education in Europe. 46p.
  • Gorbunova, N. V. (1995) Interschool management: theory and experience of pedagogical and managerial innovations. Moscow: Business. 236p.
  • Hazelkorn, E. (2015) Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for worldclass excellence. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 322p.
  • Hobley, J. (2015) Vocational Pedagogies: the Science of Teaching or the Teaching of Science? Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 16-18.
  • Hustad, E. & Arntzen, A. B. (2013) Facilitating Teaching and Learning Capabilities in Social Learning Management Systems: Challenges, Issues, and Implications for Design. Journal Of Integrated Design & Process Science, 17(1), 17-35.
  • Jaschik, S. & Lederman, D. (2014) The 2014 Inside Higher Ed Survey of faculty Attitudes on Technology. A Study by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed. Washington, DC, 44 p. Direct access: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/online-ed-skepticism-and-self-sufficien­cy-surveyfaculty-views-technology
  • Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y. & Chen, Y. (2013) An investigation of employees' use of e-learning systems: applying the technology acceptance model. Behavior & Information Technology, 32(2), 173-189.
  • Llewellyn, D. C., Usselman, M., Edwards, D., Moore, R. A., Mital, P. (2013) Analyzing K-12 Education as a Complex System. In 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 83-91.
  • Lucas, B. (2014) Vocational pedagogy: what it is, why it matters and how to put in practice. Report on the UNESCO-UNEVOC virtual conference, 12-26 May. Bonn: UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training, 32-38.
  • Mikulskiene, B. & Mazrimiene, D. (2013) Transformative quality of doctoral education: the way new standards are negotiated. System dynamics approach. In Proceedings of the 31th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 134-142.
  • National Qualifications Frameworks: Development and Certification. (2007, May) Report from Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks. Brussels, 64p.
  • National Universities Methodology. (2015) Retrieved March 17. Direct access: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/09/08/how-us-news-calculated-the-2015– best-colleges-rankings?page=2
  • Parr, C. (2013) The Best University Workplace Survey: staff unheard? Times Higher Education, 15, 51-62.
  • Saudabaeva, G. S. & Khairullin, G. T. (2009) Educational process management in the professional system education. Technology in Kazakhstan school, 4, 43-52.
  • Sharma, E. (2015) Role of higher education institutions towards developing the human capital of the world through competency mapping. Journal of Business Economics and Management Sciences, 2(1), 1-9.
  • Simonov, V. P. (2009) Pedagogical management: Know-how in education. Moscow: Business. 234p.
  • Skribans, V., Lektauers, A., Merkuryev, Y. (2013) Third Generation University Strategic Planning Model Development. Published in: Proceedings of the 31th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 1-7.
  • Strauss, L. M. & Borenstein, D. (2015, March) A system dynamics model for long-term planning of the undergraduate education in Brazil. Higher Education, 69(3), 375-397.
  • Stromquist, P. N., Monkman, K. (ed.). (2014) Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures. R&L Education. 234p.
  • Tight, M. (2014) Collegiality and managerialism: a false dichotomy? Evidence from the higher education literature. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(4), 294-306.
  • Toktarova, V. (2013) Training and methodological support of the implementation of the main educational programs in the electronic educational environment of the higher education institution. Proceedings of the Volgograd State Pedagogic University, Series "Pedagogical Sciences", 2(77), 28-32.
  • Yelmanova, V. K. (1992) Higher Education Abroad. Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House. 49p.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.