Download
Nurlan Mammadov,
Doctor of Philosophy in Pedagogy
Baku Slavic University
Baku, Azerbaijan
nurlan.mammadov.r@bsu-uni.edu.az
ORCID: 0000-0002-9673-0862
https://10.5281/zenodo.16628437
Keywords: additional education, trainings, short-term courses, seminars, master classes, conferences, forums, symposiums, coaching, mentoring
Abstract. Most of the constituent models within the organization of additional education, as core components of lifelong learning, consist of scientific-methodological and scientific-practical activities. The development of these activities typically begins with a clear definition of objectives. Although the relevant legislation outlines the general directions of additional education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the organizational models are still in the process of development. We propose that the models of additional education encompass trainings, short-term and long-term courses, seminars, masterclasses, conferences, associations, forums, and symposiums. Furthermore, we suggest the inclusion of coaching and mentoring as integral models in the organization of additional education.
Introduction
In the context of global transformations and increasing digitalization, the need for continuous innovation in education systems has become more pressing than ever. As traditional paradigms evolve, educational models — particularly those in additional and continuing education — are gaining strategic importance. These models not only reflect the dynamic relationship between pedagogy and instructional design but also serve as practical tools for achieving cognitive, affective, and competence-based learning outcomes. Theoretical approaches by scholars such as Y.A. Lodatko and V. Shtoff highlight the complexity of classifying educational models, emphasizing their conceptual diversity and context-dependent application. In Azerbaijan, the integration of global educational trends and reforms has led to an increased focus on additional education as a vital component of lifelong learning. However, while legislative frameworks outline the scope of additional education, the modeling and practical organization of such programs remain underdeveloped. This paper explores the typology, theoretical underpinnings, and practical implications of modeling in education, with a particular focus on additional education as a responsive and adaptive element of the modern pedagogical landscape.
Main part. In the context of ongoing globalization processes around the world, the informatization of society is leading to the formation of new educational models. Consequently, there is an increasing need for reforms in education that align with the evolving paradigms. Among the most dynamic elements of these emerging models is the system of supplementary (or continuing) education. This transformation is fundamentally driven by the demand for a competitive educational environment, rapid technological innovations, and the continuous advancement of digital technologies. In developed countries, traditional forms of education and learning are being integrated into newer educational models, resulting in the creation of a unified educational space. This unified space is not defined by a single model but rather consists of a diversity of educational models that reflect the varying needs, goals, and pedagogical approaches of different societies. Educational models, in turn, are built upon pedagogical models, which themselves are derived from various instructional models. For instance, the Japanese education model can be seen as a synthesis of local pedagogical frameworks that represent the collective instructional strategies of different educational institutions. These models are shaped by the institutional context and specific teaching approaches utilized in various learning environments. Depending on the syllabus or the curriculum in use, the learning process can be designed based on diverse frameworks, such as psycho-pedagogical models, cognitiveaffective models, learner-centered models, knowledge-oriented models, and more. Thus, contemporary education increasingly emphasizes a flexible, diversified, and model-based approach that responds effectively to both global challenges and local educational needs. This paradigm shift underscores the importance of innovation, adaptability, and inclusivity in the development and implementation of educational reforms across all levels of the system.
An illustrative example in this context is the research conducted by Yevgeny Lodatko on the modeling of educational systems. Lodatko conceptualizes the structuring of educational systems as the development of educational models. His approach is notable for differentiating educational systems based on their internal and external orientations, and whether they are aligned with authoritarian or democratic societal values. Based on these criteria, Lodatko categorizes educational models into four main types: totalitarian, pragmatic, rational, and open models [Lodatko, 2008]. In our view, since the term «model» varies depending on context, it is not possible to define it with a single, universal classification. Therefore, in the pedagogical context, we argue that the concept of a «model» should be understood as the structural and functional relationship among the main and supplementary components of educational documentation—particularly curricula—that reflect the content of education. These core components may represent the system of pedagogical outcomes upon which any educational process is based. Although the terms «educational model,» «pedagogical model,» and «instructional model» share certain conceptual similarities, they are not identical and possess distinct characteristics. As Viktor Shtoff points out, a pedagogical model is a system created or selected by the researcher for the purpose of achieving a cognitive goal, which possesses the ability to reconstruct the features of the studied object — its components, elements, properties, and parameters. Such a model functions as a substitute or analogue of the original object to the extent that it allows indirect acquisition of knowledge about the object, offering a reliable source of information that can be empirically tested and verified through experimentation [Shtoff, 1978]. In a similar vein, Professor Galina Kocaspirova emphasizes that an educational model is a comprehensive system that encompasses the general aims and content of education, the design of curricula and syllabi, specific objectives guiding instructional activities, student grouping strategies, methods of monitoring and reporting, as well as the assessment techniques used to evaluate the learning process [Kocaspirova, 2005]. These theoretical perspectives underscore the multifaceted nature of educational modeling and highlight the importance of understanding models not merely as abstract constructs, but as practical tools shaped by pedagogical philosophy, instructional goals, and social values.
Thus, any model in pedagogy can be considered a complete and structured system that reflects a real-world object or phenomenon. Any innovation or modification introduced into the content of this system inevitably leads to the emergence of a new model that differs from the previous one. Consequently, from a theoretical standpoint, the number of possible instructional models is virtually limitless. Some models may differ only slightly from one another, while others may exhibit fundamental distinctions—for instance, the inclusive education model, which is structurally and philosophically different from traditional models. In practice, numerous models exist that reflect various aspects of instructional organization, and new models continue to emerge as educational theory and classroom needs evolve. However, many of these models remain local in scope and are not widely known or implemented across the broader pedagogical community. In other words, a teacher-researcher may construct a model of the instructional process for the purpose of testing a scientific hypothesis within an experimental framework. Such models, even if successfully applied in a limited context, may not always find widespread use in mainstream educational practice. Nonetheless, there are certain models that encapsulate general characteristics of the instructional process and are built upon established scientific approaches, educational concepts, pedagogical principles, instructional methods, or teaching tools. These models have been widely tested in educational practice, extensively documented in scientific-pedagogical and methodological literature, and have demonstrated practical effectiveness. Among these commonly recognized instructional models are the following:
— Developmental (constructivist) learning model
— Problem-based learning model
— Heuristic (discovery-based) learning model
— Game-based learning model
— Cybernetic (systems-based) learning model
— Andragogical (adult learning) model
— Learner-centered (personality-oriented) learning model
— Passive, active, and interactive learning models, among others.
Each of these models serves distinct pedagogical purposes and reflects different theoretical assumptions about how learning occurs, how instruction should be structured, and what outcomes are prioritized. As such, they contribute to the growing diversity and complexity of modern educational practice and research. — In the process of educational modeling, a variety of instructional tools and resources are employed to support and enhance teaching and learning. These tools may be categorized as follows: Didactic visual aids – including pictorial, schematic, and symbolic materials that help illustrate concepts in a tangible and accessible manner; Virtual reality tools – such as head-mounted displays and light-based projection systems that simulate immersive learning environments; Verbal resources – including educational literature, teaching-methodological manuals, dictionaries, and didactic materials such as task cards and worksheets; Technical tools – such as audio recordings, video and multimedia teaching resources, electronic textbooks, digital databases, and computer-assisted instructional software. It is essential to note that the educational model applied in pedagogical theory and practice must be directed toward specific pedagogical functions. These functions may include, but are not limited to: illustrative, heuristic, logical, analytical, synthetic, reconstructive, explanatory, predictive, cognitive, critical, communicative, and technological functions. Instructional methods and tools are manifested through the organizational forms of the teaching process and the primary types of educational activity. In higher education institutions, particularly in the preparation of future socio-pedagogical professionals, the following instructional formats are widely utilized:
- Lectures – for delivering theoretical knowledge;
- Seminars and practical sessions – which promote discussion and application of concepts;
- Laboratory practicums – for hands-on, experiment-based learning;
- Colloquia – for assessment and in-depth examination of students’ understanding;
- Student research projects – encouraging independent scholarly inquiry;
- Independent study – to promote self-directed learning and etc.
Various types of internships – including teaching, industrial, and professional placements that provide both theoretical and practical training; other assessment tools – designed to evaluate students’ knowledge, skills, and competencies. It is worth mentioning that in some pedagogical literature, instructional models and teaching methods are occasionally presented interchangeably due to their overlapping features. However, conflating the two may lead to conceptual ambiguity. While teaching models may include specific methods within their framework, they are not equivalent. Each model typically embodies its own unique set of methods aligned with its instructional philosophy and objectives. Moreover, as new forms of instructional delivery emerge — particularly in the context of distance education — it becomes increasingly important to understand how these models adapt to changing educational environments. As some researchers have noted, “distance education is fundamentally different from traditional education also because it creates a new educational information environment, in which a student comes who knows exactly what knowledge, skills and abilities he or she needs” [Mammadov, 2022].
This shift emphasizes learner autonomy and the need for pedagogical models that are responsive to individualized educational demands. From the aforementioned, we can conclude that since there are models for education, teaching, and upbringing, it is indeed possible to apply modeling as an objective and universal epistemological procedure in pedagogy. Therefore, the practical application of modeling in pedagogy must be analyzed through the lens of educational models as a means of addressing both theoretical and practical problems. Pedagogical modeling of the teaching process facilitates the structuring of educational interactions, helps discover new methods to activate cognitive engagement, and contributes to the implementation of proactive approaches to organizing instruction.
The application of modeling in the organization of continuing (in-service and postgraduate) education is both essential and inherently complex. This complexity arises from the fact that the content and organizational forms of instruction in continuing education span all levels of higher education and embody significant didactic diversity. According to researchers, one of the most promising models for continuing education is the hybrid (blended) learning model, which integrates traditional and distance learning formats [Zakharova, 2010].
In this context, T.Sh. Shikhnabiyeva suggests the use of a semantic network-based transmission model for distance education. She argues that such a model enhances the logical structure of instructional content, adds a level of clarity and rigor, and enables semantic networks to reflect the features and attributes of the learning object [Shikhnabiyeva, 2006]. The integration of the Republic of Azerbaijan into the European and global educational space has necessitated comprehensive reforms within the system of continuous pedagogical education. It is evident that the overall quality and efficiency of reforms in the education system are directly linked to reforms in teacher training. Ultimately, the effectiveness and progress of the entire educational system—across all its sectors—depend significantly on the professional performance of pedagogical personnel.
Although the September 6, 2010 decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan on «The Content, Organization, and Certification Procedures for Continuing Education» established general contours for the organizational models of additional education, it fell short of precisely defining these models. Consequently, a number of potential organizational formats in the sphere of continuing education remain underexplored or underutilized. These include, but are not limited to:
— Trainings
— Short-term courses
— Long-term courses
— Instructional workshops
— Seminars
— Masterclasses
— Conferences
— Clubs and learning circles
— Forums and symposiums
It is clear that the demands of the modern era, shaped by the realities of a market economy, a competitive labor market, and evolving social expectations, require professionals to acquire new knowledge, skills, and competencies on a continual basis. Re-enrolling in formal degree programs to gain such competencies is often impractical, both in terms of time and economic cost—for both the social-pedagogical professionals themselves and the institutions involved. The most agile and optimal solution lies in postgraduate continuing education models that are designed to address these emerging needs quickly and efficiently. Generally, the organizational models of additional education—as a key component of lifelong learning—are composed of a range of scientific-methodological and practice-oriented educational activities. At present, the primary goal is to improve the methods of working with such professionals, recognizing that each social worker, pedagogue, teacher, or educator possesses a unique level of pedagogical skill shaped by their professional experience.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the increasing complexity of modern professional demands necessitates flexible, targeted, and practice-oriented educational approaches. Additional education, as a fundamental component of lifelong learning, offers a pragmatic alternative to traditional degree programs by providing timely and cost-effective opportunities for skill and competency development. The effectiveness of such education lies not only in its content but also in its organizational models, which must be carefully structured around clear, achievable objectives. When designed strategically, these models can significantly enhance the professional performance of educators, social workers, and other pedagogical personnel. Ultimately, the pedagogical modeling of continuing education represents both a theoretical necessity and a practical imperative — ensuring that educational systems remain responsive, adaptive, and aligned with the evolving needs of society.
References
- Захарова, О. А., Рыльщикова, Л. П., Атрошина, Э. Б., & др. (2010). Методологические основы применения информационно-коммуникационных технологий для развития интеллектуальных особенностей обучающихся (с. 35). Ростов н/Д: Издательский центр ДГТУ.
- Коджаспирова, Г.М. (2005). Педагогический словарь (с. 94). Москва: Академия.
- Лодатко, Е.А. (2008). Моделирование образовательных систем в контексте ценностной ориентации социокультурного пространства. Научно-культурологический журнал, (1)164, 2.
- Mammadov, N.R. Models of additional education based on distance learning technologies. (2022). In The XXV International Scientific and Practical Conference «Innovative trends of science and practice, tasks and ways to solve them» (pp. 301–306). Athens, Greece.
- Шихнабиева, Т. Ш. (2006). Модели процесса обучения сельских школьников. Педагогическая информатика, (4), 90.
- Штофф, В. А. (1978). Проблемы методологии научного познания (с. 48). Москва: Высшая школа.