World experience in identifying metacognitive competencies of a teacher in the course of professional development and work with gifted children

Today, there are significant requirements for the professional competencies of a teacher, among which a special place is occupied by competencies that determine the effectiveness of work with different categories of students. The article presents the results of a theoretical comparison of conceptual approaches to the identification and development of professional competencies of future teachers. The metacognitive competencies underlying self-learning are analyzed. The role of special work within the framework of individual educational courses, trainings and practices in higher education, aimed at developing metacognitive strategies and competencies of future teachers, is substantiated. The article proposes a support structure for the components of metacognitive competence (metacognitive knowledge, declarative knowledge, metacognitive strategies). After analyzing the concept map and comparing various models of identification and development of metacognitive competence, the authors single out research, managerial and communicative competences in its structure.

An analysis of domestic research highlights the role of managing competencies for  working with a gifted child and shows that a future teacher must constantly develop regulatory and personal qualities in himself and in a gifted student. When working with a gifted student, a teacher needs metacognitive competence, which is formed in the process of asking questions to oneself, in attempts to try other strategies for solving pedagogical situations. The teacher is required not only to be able to teach, but also to constantly learn himself in order to be able to solve non-trivial situations together with students.

It is shown how the relationship between a teacher and students affects psychological health, well-being, psychological burnout, the quality of professional activity, the ability to work with a gifted person. The conclusion is made about how approaches to the professional training of specialists in the educational sphere should change in order to provide the opportunity to work with the category of gifted children. 

1. Peskov VP, Golmenko AD. Features of professional burnout among teachers working with gifted children. Rebenok v sovremennom obrazovatel’nom prostranstve megapolisa: Materialy VIII mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. Moscow: Moskovskiy gorodskoy pedagogicheskiy universitet; 2021: 25-31. (In Russ.).

2. Bykov RA, Bykova EYu, Vlasova YuA, Social apathy of teachers as a form of adaptation to modern socio-cultural conditions. Tomsk: Krasnoe znamya; 2020. (In Russ.).

3. SavеnkovAI, RomanovaMA. Designing mathematical tasks for primary school students as a means of developing combinatorial abilities. Revista Geintec-Gestao Inovacao e Tecnologias. 2021; 11(3): 2108-2117. doi: 10.47059/revistageintec.v11i3.2077

4. Panov VI. Ecopsychology: Paradigmatic Search. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Psikhologicheskiy institut RAO; Nestor-Istoriya; 2014. (In Russ.).

5. Bladyko AV. Features of emotional burnout in teachers and educators. Psikhologiya: traditsii i innovatsii: Materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii. Ufa: Leto; 2021:34-39. (In Russ.).

6. Modern problems of research of the burnout syndrome in specialists of communication professions. Kursk: Kurskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet; 2008. (In Russ.).

7. Sopov VF. Mental states in intense professional activity. Moscow: Akadem proekt; 2005. (In Russ.).

8. Larionova LI. Social adaptation of gifted children. Zhurnal prikladnoy psikhologii. 2002; 1: 32-37. (In Russ.).

9. Sillaste GG. Rural teaching: A way of life and an adaptive resource. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia. 2012; 9: 50-59. (In Russ.).

10. Prokhorov AO. Mental states of schoolchildren and teachers in the process of their interaction in the lesson. Voprosy Psychologii. 1990; 6: 68-74. (In Russ.).

11. CorbinCM, AlamosP, LowensteinAE, DownerJT, BrownJL. The role of teacher-student relationships in predicting teachers’ personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion. J Sch Psychol. 2019; 77: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.001

12. Bakker АВ, Vries J. Job Demands – Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2021; (34): 1-21. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695

13. Bottiani JH, Duran CAK, Pas ET, Bradshaw CP. Teacher stress and burnout in urban middle schools: Associations with job demands, resources, and effective classroom practice. J Sch Psychol. 2019; 77: 36-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.002

14. Ahola K, Toppinen-Tanner S, Seppänen J. Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic review and metaanalysis. Burn Res. 2017; 4: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.burn.2017.02.001

15. Tang WG, Vandenberghe C. Is affective commitment always good? A look at within-person effects on needs satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. J Vocat Behav. 2020; 119: 103411. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103411

16. Xu H. Incremental validity of the career adapt-abilities scale total score over general self-efficacy. J Vocat Behav. 2020; 119: 103425. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103425

17. Kim J, Shin Y, Tsukayama E, ParkD. Stress mindset predicts job turnover among preschool teachers. J Sch Psychol. 2020; 78: 13-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.11.002

18. Barthauer L, Kaucher P, Spurk D, Kauffeld S. Burnout and career (un)sustainability: Looking into the Blackbox of burnout triggered career turnover intentions. J Vocat Behav. 2020; 117: 103334. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103334

19. Hornstra L, BakxA, MathijssenS, DenissenJJA.Motivating gifted and non-gifted students in regular primary schools: A selfdetermination perspective. Learn Individ Differ. 2020; 80: 101871. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101871

20. Anderson N. The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest, EDO. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics; 2002: 4-7. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED463659.pdf [дата доступа: 15.07.2021].

21. Wolters CA. Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol. 2003; 38(4): 189-205. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3804_1

22. Shannon SV. Using metacognitive strategies and learning styles to create self-directed learners. Institute for Learning Styles Journal. 2008; 1(1): 14-28.

23. Tarricone P. The taxonomy of metacognition. N.Y.: Psychology press; Hove: Taylor and Francis Group; 2011. doi 10.4324/9780203830529

24. ShonDA. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. 1st ed. N.Y.: Basic Books; 1987.

25. Dirkes MA. Metacognition: Students in charge of their thinking. Roeper Rev. 1985. 8(2): 96-100.

26. Mitsea E, Drigas A. A journey into the Metacognitive Learning Strategies. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (IJOE). 2019; 15(14): 4-18. doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v15i14.11379

27. Abdelrahman RM. Metacognitive awareness and academic motivation and their impact on academic achievement of Ajman University students. Heliyon. 2020; 6(9): e04192. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04192

28. Koreshnikova YuN, Frumin ID. Teachers’ professional skills as a factor in the development of students’ critical thinking. Psychological Science and Education. 2020; 25(6): 88-103. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17759/pse.2020250608

29. Cerghit I. Sisteme de instruire alternative şi complementare: structuri, stiluri si strategii. Bucureşti; 2002: 219-220.

30. Flavell J. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol. 1979; 34(10): 906-911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

31. Morosanova VI, Shcheblanova EI, Bondarenko IN, Sidikov VA. The relationship of psychometric intelligence, conscious self-regulation of educational activity and academic performance of gifted adolescents. The Moscow University Herald. Series 14. Psychology. 2013; 3: 18-32. (In Russ.).

32. Savenkov AI, Afanasyeva ZhV, Bogdanova AV, Serebrennikova YuA, Smirnova PV. Tutoring support of research and project activities of younger schoolchildren in the conditions of a reflexiveactivity approach to education using the resources of organizing classes with students. Moscow: Izvestia IPPO; 2020. (In Russ.).

33. Warwick P, Vrikki M, Færøyvik Karlsen AM, Dudley P, Vermunt JD. The role of pupil’s voice as a trigger for teacher learning in Lesson Study professional groups. Camb J Educ. 2018. 49(4): 435-455. doi: 10.1080/0305764.2018.1556606

34. Flores C. Beginning teacher induction in Chile: Change overtime. Int J Educ Res. 2019; 97: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.06.001

35. Stanciu M, Dumitriu C, Clipa O, Ignat AA, Mâţă L, Brezuleanu CO. Experimental research on metacognitive competence development at freshmen students from three Romanian universities. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2011; 29: 1914-1923. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.441

36. Nbina JB, Viko B. Effect of instruction in metacognitive self-assessment strategy on chemistry self-efficacy and achievement of senior secondary school students in Rivers State, Nigeria. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal. 2010; 8(4): 19. URL: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol8/iss4/19 [дата доступа: 06.08.2021].

37. Yang C, Bai L. The use of metacognitive strategies by Chinese PhD students of social sciences in Australian universities. Int J Educ Res. 2019; 97: 43-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.06.007

38. Segedy J, Kinnebrew J, Biswas G. Modeling learner’s cognitive and metacognitive strategies in an open-ended learning environment. Advances in Cognitive Systems: Papers from the 2011 AAAI Fall Symposium. 2011: 297-304. URL: https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/FSS/FSS11/paper/viewFile/4133/4539 [дата доступа: 05.07.2021]

39. GarnerJK, KaplanAA. Complex dynamic systems perspective on teacher learning and identify formation: An instrumental case. Teach Teach: Theory Pract. 2019; 25(1): 7-33. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1533811

40. Schaefer L, Hennig L, Clandidin J. Intensions of early career teachers: Should we stay or should we go now? Teaching Education. 2020; 32(3): 309-322. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2020. 1730317