A STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL MODEL OF DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ PROFESSIONAL READINESS IN PLATFORM-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Keywords:
ructural-functional model; professional readiness; pedagogical platform; cognitive-didactic approach; task class; adaptive learning path; pedagogical conditions; higher education.Abstract
Theoretical frameworks for digital professional preparation are
rarely translated into designs that a department can implement. This paper develops a
structural-functional model of the formation of students’ professional readiness in
platform-based learning environments, derived from cognitive-didactic premises. The
study applies pedagogical modelling: the model is constructed from four interrelated
blocks — target, content-methodological, procedural-technological, and diagnostic
resultative — and is required to satisfy criteria of theoretical consistency, operational
completeness, and implementability within a credit-module curriculum. The
procedural-technological block organises learning as a sequence of task classes of
rising complexity, in which support is withdrawn as expertise grows, and distributes
platform affordances across three stages: adaptive-orienting, operational-practical,
and professional-creative. The diagnostic-resultative block returns data to the student
rather than only to the teacher, which converts assessment into a regulator of the
process instead of a terminal measurement. The model’s defining feature is a closed
feedback circuit: diagnostic results re-enter the content-methodological block and
alter the subsequent task sequence, so that the model describes a self-correcting
process rather than a linear scheme. Nine pedagogical conditions for implementation
are formulated. The model provides the design basis for experimental verification and
is applicable to the digital transformation of teacher education in Uzbekistan.
References
Frerejean, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., Roex, A.,
Aertgeerts, B., & Marcellis, M. (2019). Designing instruction for complex learning:
4C/ID in higher education. European Journal of Education, 54(4), 513–524.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12363
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),
1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of
educators: DigCompEdu (Y. Punie, Ed.; EUR 28775 EN). Publications Office of the
European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive
architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251
296.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive
architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review,
31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002).
Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504993
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.
Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
