The article is devoted to scientific analysis of the phenomenon of pedagogical mastery. Research findings on pedagogical mastery, pedagogical creativity, pedagogical technologies have been studied in the light of historical and pedagogical paradigm. In addition, various scientific approaches and views of scholars on the essence of pedagogical mastery have been considered and the ambiguity of their scientific interpretations has been justified. The scientific category of pedagogical mastery is regarded as a social, cultural and historical phenomenon, caused by the challenges of society in line with the relevant social priorities and directions according to the goals and objectives of a particular historical period. Subsequently, complexity and multidimensionality of the notion of pedagogical mastery and presence of various scientific approaches (technological, creative, personality- and activitybased) to interpreting the scientific category have been proved. Based on the current sociocultural situation, the relevance of researches on pedagogical mastery as a scientific category has been proved and its role in training future teachers, which can be considered as a certain teaching strategy and factor in forming their readiness for innovative activity has been defined. It has been found out that diversity and interdisciplinarity of pedagogical mastery in the system of scientific knowledge promote methodological strategies for its research, the need for their systematization and complex implementation.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Caroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers college record, 64, 723-733.
4. ten Dam, G. T. M., & Volman, M. L. L. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learning and instruction, 14 (4), 359-379. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.01.005.
5. Grassel, H. (1968). Probleme und Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen der Lehrertätigkeit. Rostock: Studie des Wissenchaftsbereichs Pädagogische Psychologie der Universität Rostock.
6. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, London: Beacon Press.
7. Makarenko, A. S. (1954). Tvory v 7 t. Kyiv: Radianska shkola.
8. Matsuda, T., & Sakamoto, T. (1991). Development and evaluation of a curriculum for informatics education by means of logo programming at higher grades of elementary schools. Japan journal of educational technology, 15 (1), 1-14.
9. Melish, J. P. (2016). Public history and American studies pedagogy. American quarterly, 68 (2), 367-370.
10. Potashnik, M. M. (1988). Pedagogicheskoe tvorchestvo: problemy razvitiia I opyt: posobie dlia uchitelia. Kiev: Radianska shkola.
11. Sbruieva, A. A. (2004). Tendentsii reformuvannia serednoi osvity rozvynenykh anhlomovnykh krain v konteksti hlobalizatsii (90-ti rr. XX - pochatok XXI st.). Sumy: VAT “Sumska oblasna drukarnia”; Vydavnytstvo “Kozatskyi val”.
12. Sincero, S. (2012). Humanistic perspective and personality. Retrieved from .
13. Somr, M., & Hrušková, L. (2014). Herbart’s philosophy of pedagogy and educational teaching. Studia edukacyjne, 33, 413-429.
14. Tamburri, R. (2011). Canadian-style pedagogy takes roots overseas. Retrieved from .
15. UNESCO. (1986). Glossary of educational technology terms. Retrieved from .
16. UNESCO: International Bereau of Education. (1993). Johann Friedrich Herbart. Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, XXIII (3/4), 649-664.
17. Ziaziun, I. A. (2003). Osvitni paradyhmy v konteksti filosofskykh idei. In T. Levovytskyi, I. Vilsh, I. Ziaziun, N. Nychkalo (Red.), Profesiina osvita: pedahohika I psykholohiia: Polsko-ukrainskyozhurnal (S. 221-222). Czȩstochowa-Kyiv: Vydavnytstvo Vyshchoi pedahohichnoi shkoly u Chekhonstovi.