pp. 755-766 | Article Number: iejme.2016.071
Published Online: July 16, 2016
Article Views: 360 | Article Download: 385
The relevance of the problem under study is determined by the necessity to intensify practical effect of multicultural education when future teachers education on the one hand and the absence of algorithms of effective use of pedagogical technologies at universities on the other hand. In this respect the aim of the research presented in the article is to define the appropriate algorithm of using pedagogical technologies in multicultural education. The leading method in the problem research is project method which allows grouping the system of active methods and identify the best algorithm (curriculum) for using problem-based technologies. As as a result of examining different combinations (algorithms) of using these technologies we established that optimality (effectiveness) of multicultural education at university can be achieved at the teaching level by progressing from communicative technology to critical thinking technology, then to case-study technology, module learning, project technology, problem-based learning and moderation technology with an expert problem seminar at the end; at the level of study - by progressing from understanding the problem, determining the ways for solving the problem, selecting arguments before discussing the ways of problem solving and summing up at expert problem seminar. The article materials can be useful for pedagogical university teachers.
Keywords: Algorithm, technology, multicultural education, university
Baum, S. & Payea, K. (2011). Trends in student aid. New York, College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. Direct access: http://trends.collegeboard.org/downloads/Student_Aid_2011.pdf
Carras, C. I. (2007). Le françaissur Objectifs Spécifiqueset la classe de langue. Paris: CLE International. 233p.
Cuq, J. P. i Gruca, I. (2002). Cours de didactique du français langue étrangèreetseconde. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble. 276p.
Davydov, V. V. (1986). The problems of developmental education. Moscow: Pedagogy. 240p.
Gabdulchakov, V. F. & Yashina O. V. (2015). Prevention of Latent National Aggression in the Course of Future Teacher EducationAsian Social Science. 11(2), 275-283.
Gabdulchakov, V. F. (2015). Theory and practice of multicultural education: Study program. Direct access: http://repository. kpfu.ru /?p_id=112087
Gouiller, F. (2006). Les outils du Conseil de l’Europe en classe de langue. Paris: Didier. 317p.
Hanushek, E. A. (2010). The economic value of higher teacher quality. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Direct access: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001507-Higher-Teacher-Quality.pdf
Heilig, J. V. & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence. Boulder: National Education Policy Center, Univ. of Colora. Direct access: dohttp://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america
Lloyd-Jones G., Margetson, D. & Bligh, J. G. (1998). Problem-based learning: a coat of many colours. Med Educ., 32(5), 492-494.
Makhmutov, M. I. (1975). Problem-based learning. Moscow: Pedagogy. 344p.
Makhmutov, M. I. (1977). Organizing problem-based learning at school. Moscow: Prosveshenie. 240p.
Mangiante, J. M. & Parpette, Ch. (2004). Le françaissur Objectif Spécifique: del’analyse des besoins à l’élaboration d’un cours. Paris: Hachette. 277p.
Matyushkin, A. M. (1980). The problems of professional and theoretical thinking development. Moscow: Pedagogy. 296p.
Mc. Gregor T. A. (2008). Universal Organisational Perfomance Dimension Model: The development of a Theoretical Based Competency Mode. Direct access: http://www. opragroup.com/ community/file/128.pdf.
Porcher, L. (2004). L’enseignement des languesétrangères. Paris: Hachette Education.
Schleicher, A. (2011). Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world, OECD Publishing. 328p.
Spencer, L. M., Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley, 284p.
Strategic Academic Units (StrAU's) (2015). Direct access: http://isi.sfu-kras.ru/ sites/ is. institute.sfukras.ru/files/ Rekomendacii_CAE_.pdf
Teodorescu T. (2006). Competence verus competency: What is the difference? Performance improvement, 45(10), 27-30.
Terenzini P. & Reason R. (2010). Toward a More Comprehensive Understanding of College Effects on Student Learning. Center for the Study of Higher Education. 327p.
The Engineer of 2020. (2004). Visions of Engineering in the New Century.National Academy of Engineering, USA. Direct access: https://inside.mines.edu/ UserFiles/Assessment/ Engr 2020.pdf http://repository.kpfu.ru/?p_id=112087
Valerian F. Gabdulchakov, (2014, August 25) Communicative Core of Interaction and its Influence on Education Results. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Third Annual International Conference «Early Childhood Care and Education», 381–384.
Venguer, L. A. (1973). Pedagogics of capabilities. Moscow: Pedagogy. 96p.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Moscow: Sojuz. 96p.