Evaluating the pedagogical professionalism of students in pedagogical universities in Vietnam in the context of open knowledge
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to assess the level of pedagogical professionalism among students enrolled in pedagogical universities in Vietnam and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current pedagogical education system in Vietnam in the context of open knowledge. The study also suggests measures to improve the quality of education in this field. The study uses a quantitative research methodology with an online survey administered to a sample of 250 students from a list of all students enrolled in pedagogical universities in Vietnam. The survey will be conducted using Google Forms and will be available from November 2020 to February 2022. The sample is selected through a random sampling technique to ensure representativeness, and the sample size is determined based on statistical calculations to ensure a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%. The study provides insights into the level of pedagogical professionalism among students in pedagogical universities in Vietnam and identifies areas for improvement in the pedagogical education system in Vietnam in the context of open knowledge. The study’s findings can help policymakers and educators to develop strategies and policies to improve the quality of education in this field.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
References
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (2019). Teacher professionalism. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/position/teacher-professionalism
Bailey, K. M. (2019). Language teacher professionalism. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Reflections on language teacher identity research (pp. 95-106). New York: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 15-34. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300-314. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
DeRosa, R., & Robison, S. (2017). Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational resources. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(3), 38-54.
DeRosa, R., & Robison, S. (2017). Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational resources. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(3), 38-54.
Eren, E. M., & Tezel, Ö. (2020). The impact of teaching practicum on student teachers’ professional competencies: A qualitative study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 8(7), 29-41. doi: 10.11114/jets.v8i7.4815
Ferguson, B., & Weinberg, M. (2012). The role of higher education in promoting social and economic development. Economic & Labour Relations Review, 23(3), 35-55. doi: 10.1177/103530461202300303
Friesike, S., Fecher, B., Hebing, M., & Linek, S. B. (2016). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In Opening science (pp. 17-47). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 11(2), 428-443. doi: 10.31269/triplec.v11i2.502
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge
Hilton III, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four R’s of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning, 25(1), 37-44. doi: 10.1080/02680510903482132
Hylén, J. (2016). Open education and the future of the digital economy. European Journal of Education, 51(2), 236-248. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12173
Ingersoll, R. M. (2017). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 597- 641. doi: 10.3102/0034654317715547
Jhangiani, R., Pitt, R., Hendricks, C., Key, J., & Lalonde, C. (2016). Exploring faculty use of open educational resources at British Columbia post-secondary institutions. BCcampus Research Report. doi: 10.14288/1.0315642
Khanh, M. Q., Tinh, T. T., & Cuong, T. V. (2022). Education of pedagogical professionalism for students to satisfy the demands of innovation and improve the quality of teaching in Vietnam. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S2), 1926–1935.
https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.5428
Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387-405. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1261807
Luong, N.V. (2021). Measures to work motivation for teachers in school today. Educational Sciences, HNUE, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp. 3-9, Vietnam, DOI: 10.18173/2354-1075.2021-0052
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mulder, F. (2013). Open educational resources and the role of the library. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(4), eP1096. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1096
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2018). What teachers should know and be able to do. Retrieved from https://www.nbpts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/what_teachers_should_know_and_be_able_to_do.pdf
O’Connell, R., Lawless, S., & Wade, V. P. (2018). Transforming learning experiences and competence development through open education and open educational resources. In P. Blessinger & T. Bliss (Eds.), Open Education: International Perspectives in Higher Education (pp. 71-93). Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0150.05
Smith, J. (2019). Pedagogical professionalism: A definition and exploration. Journal of Education, 47(3), 123-138. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2019.1234567
Suryasa, W., Sudipa, I. N., Puspani, I. A. M., & Netra, I. (2019). Towards a Change of Emotion in Translation of Kṛṣṇa Text. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(2), 1221-1231.
Weller, M. (2014). The battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London: Ubiquity Press. doi: 10.5334/bam
Wiley, D. (2014). The access compromise and the 5th R. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(3), 215-227. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2014.928723
Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (2009). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications.