Аґентність учнів у контексті інноваційного навчального середовища: концептуалізація та теоретичні засади

11. Archer, M. (2007). Making our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

13. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

14. Bandura, A. (2006). Towards a Psychology of Human Agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180.

15. Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Routledge.

16. Brown, G. (2008). The Ontology of Learning Envirnoments. In: Learning and Learner: Exploring Learning in New Times / Ed. by P. Kell, W Vialle, D. Konza, G. Vogl. Australia: University of Wollongong. Retrieved from: https://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/47.

17. Brown, G. (2009). The Ontological Turn in Education. Journal of Critical Realism, 8(1), 5-34. DOI: 10.1558/jocr.v8i1.5.

18. Callero, P.L. (2003). The Sociology of Self. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 115-133.

19. Charteris, J., Thomas, E. (2016). Uncovering “Unwelcome Truths” through Student Voice: Teacher Inquiry into Agency and Student Assessment Literacy. Teaching Education, 28(2), 162-177. DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2016.1229291.

20. Charteris, J., Smardon, D. (2018). A typology of agency in new generation learning environment: emerging relational, ecological and new material considerations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 26(1), 51-68.

21. Delgarno, B. (2014). Polysynchronous Learning: A Model for Student Interaction and Engagement. Retrieved from: https://ascilite.org/conferences/dunedin2014/files/concisepapers/255-Dalgarno.pdf.

22. Dumont, H., Istance, D., Benavides, F. (Eds.) (2010). The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-en.

23. Ertl, H., Wright, S. (2008). Reviewing the literature on the student learning experience in higher education. London Review of Education, 6(3), 195-210.

24. Fisher, K. (2016). The Translational Design of Schools: An Evidence-Based Approach to Aligning Pedagogy and Learning Environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

25. Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Multilingual Matters.

26. Gecas, V (2003). Self-Agency and the Life Course. In: J. Mortimer, M. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Kluwer.

27. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society Introduction of the Theory of Structuration. Berkley: University of California Press.

28. Hitlin, S., Elder, G.H.Jr. (2007). Time, Self and the Curiously Abstract Concept of Agency. Sociological Theory, 25(2), 170-191.

29. Imms, W, Cleveland B., Fisher, K. (2016). Pursuing That Elusive Evidence about What Works in Learning Environment Design. In: Evaluating Learning Environment / Ed. by W Imms, B. Cleveland, K. Fisher (pp. 3-17). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

30. Istance, D., Kools, M. (2013). OECD Work on Technology and Education: Innovative Learning Environments as an Integrating Framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43-57.

31. Istance, D. (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems. Paris: OECD.

32. Kahn, P., Qualter, A., Young, R. (2012). Structure and Agency in Learning: a Critical Realist Theory of the Development of Capacity to Reflect on Academic Practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 859-871.

33. Manyukhina, Y., Wyse, D. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: a critical realist perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 223-243.

34. Martin, J. (2004). Self-Regulated Learning, Social Cognitive Theory, and Agency. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 135-145.

35. OECD (2013). Innovative Learning Environments, Educational Research and Innovationю. OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-en.

36. OECD (2017). The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/9789264277274-en.

37. OECD (2018). The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. Published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.

38. OECD (2019). Conceptual Learning Framework. Student Agency for 2030. Retrireved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/student-agency/ Student_Agency_for_2030_concept_note.pdf.

39. Schoon, I. (2018). Conceptualising Learner Agency: A Socio-Ecological Developmental Approach. Published by the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies. Retrieved from: https://www.llakes.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LLAKES-Research-Paper-64-Schoon-I.pdf.

40. Toohey, K., Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In: D. Palfreyman, R.C. Smith (Eds.), Learner Autonomy Across Cultures (pp. 58-72). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

41. Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In: P. Benson (Ed.), Learner Autonomy 8: Teacher and Learner Perspectives. Authentik (pp. 5-24). Dublin.

42. Vaughn, M. (2018). Making sense of student agency in the early grades. Phi Delta Kappan. 99(7), 62-66.

References

1. Bandura, A. (2000). Theory of social learning / Tr. from English; Ed. by V Chubar'. [In Russian]. St-Petersburg: Ltd. Izdatel'skaya gruppa «Evrazia». [=Бандура 2000].

2. Humeniuk, V (2020). The Plurality of Definitions and Operationalization in the context of School Education. [In Ukrainian]. NaUKMA Research Papers. Sociology, 3, 27-36. [=Гуменюк 2020].

3. Nova Ukrains'ka Shkola (NUSH). The conceptual principles of secondary school reforming (2016). [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Ministry of education and science of Ukraine. Retrieved from: https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/zagalna%20serednya/nova-ukrainska-shkola-compressed. pdf [=Нова українська школа 2016].

4. Osypchuk, A. (2007). Theory of morphogenesis of Margaret Archer as an attempt of «structure-agency» synthesis. [In Russian]. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 2, 150-163. [=Осипчук 2007].

5. Shchudlo, S., Zabolotna, O., Lisova, T. (2018). The Ukrainian teachers and learning environment. According to the results of all-Ukrainian survey of teaching and learning among school directors and teachers of general education institutions (Following TALIS methodology). [In Ukrainian]. Dro- hobych: Ltd. «Track-LTD». [=Щудло 2018].

6. Archer, M. (1982). Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining Structure and Action. British Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 456-483.

7. Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Archer, M. (1996). Culture and Agency. The place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Archer, M. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency, and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Archer, M. (2007). Making our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

13. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.

14. Bandura, A. (2006). Towards a Psychology of Human Agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180.

15. Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Routledge.

16. Brown, G. (2008). The Ontology of Learning Envirnoments. In: Learning and Learner: Exploring Learning in New Times / Ed. by P. Kell, W Vialle, D. Konza, G. Vogl. Australia: University of Wollongong. Retrieved from: https://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/47.

17. Brown, G. (2009). The Ontological Turn in Education. Journal of Critical Realism, 8(1), 5-34. DOI: 10.1558/jocr.v8i1.5.

18. Callero, P.L. (2003). The Sociology of Self. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 115-133.

19. Charteris, J., Thomas, E. (2016). Uncovering “Unwelcome Truths” through Student Voice: Teacher Inquiry into Agency and Student Assessment Literacy. Teaching Education, 28(2), 162-177. DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2016.1229291.

20. Charteris, J., Smardon, D. (2018). A typology of agency in new generation learning environment: emerging relational, ecological and new material considerations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 26(1), 51-68.

21. Delgarno, B. (2014). Polysynchronous Learning: A Model for Student Interaction and Engagement. Retrieved from: https://ascilite.org/conferences/dunedin2014/files/concisepapers/255-Dalgarno.pdf.

22. Dumont, H., Istance, D., Benavides, F. (Eds.) (2010). The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264086487-en.

23. Ertl, H., Wright, S. (2008). Reviewing the literature on the student learning experience in higher education. London Review of Education, 6(3), 195-210.

24. Fisher, K. (2016). The Translational Design of Schools: An Evidence-Based Approach to Aligning Pedagogy and Learning Environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

25. Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Multilingual Matters.

26. Gecas, V (2003). Self-Agency and the Life Course. In: J. Mortimer, M. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Kluwer.

27. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society Introduction of the Theory of Structuration. Berkley: University of California Press.

28. Hitlin, S., Elder, G.H.Jr. (2007). Time, Self and the Curiously Abstract Concept of Agency. Sociological Theory, 25(2), 170-191.

29. Imms, W, Cleveland B., Fisher, K. (2016). Pursuing That Elusive Evidence about What Works in Learning Environment Design. In: Evaluating Learning Environment / Ed. by W Imms, B. Cleveland, K. Fisher (pp. 3-17). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

30. Istance, D., Kools, M. (2013). OECD Work on Technology and Education: Innovative Learning Environments as an Integrating Framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43-57.

31. Istance, D. (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems. Paris: OECD.

32. Kahn, P., Qualter, A., Young, R. (2012). Structure and Agency in Learning: a Critical Realist Theory of the Development of Capacity to Reflect on Academic Practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 859-871.

33. Manyukhina, Y., Wyse, D. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: a critical realist perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 223-243.

34. Martin, J. (2004). Self-Regulated Learning, Social Cognitive Theory, and Agency. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 135-145.

35. OECD (2013). Innovative Learning Environments, Educational Research and Innovationю. OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-en.

36. OECD (2017). The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/9789264277274-en.

37. OECD (2018). The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. Published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.

38. OECD (2019). Conceptual Learning Framework. Student Agency for 2030. Retrireved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/student-agency/Student_Agency_for_2030_concept_note.pdf.

39. Schoon, I. (2018). Conceptualising Learner Agency: A Socio-Ecological Developmental Approach. Published by the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies. Retrieved from: https://www.llakes.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LLAKES-Research-Paper-64-Schoon-I.pdf.

40. Toohey, K., Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In: D. Palfreyman, R.C. Smith (Eds.), Learner Autonomy Across Cultures (pp. 58-72). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

41. Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In: P. Benson (Ed.), Learner Autonomy 8: Teacher and Learner Perspectives. Authentik (pp. 5-24). Dublin.

42. Vaughn, M. (2018). Making sense of student agency in the early grades. Phi Delta Kappan. 99(7), 62-66.

Размещено на Allbest.ru